JORDAN WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT STUDY
December, 2011 Prepared for the Ministry of Water and Irrigation of Jordan (MWI), supported and funded by the French Development Agency (AFD / FDA)
About this report This report is the synthesis of a series of reports on aspects of water demand management, which were prepared for the Jordanian Ministry of Water and Irrigation under a funding scheme of the French Development Agency by consultants from ATEEC and QUASIR between July, 2010 and November 2011. The five reports provide detailed and in‐depth information on the considered topics and are available at the Ministry of Water and Irrigation and the French Development Agency: Diagnostic report – compiles information on the current water situation, its future trends and an assessment of impacts from selected programs in Jordanian water demand management Valuation report – comprises calculations and explanations about the values of water in Jordan’s different sectors of water demand Intermediary report – describes potential scenarios of water demand development until 2025 Scenario Impact Analysis – gives an overview on the major consequences under the developed scenarios. Pre‐conditions for Successful Implementation – comments on the results from the scenario impact analyses in the framework of Jordan's Water Strategy and Action Plan.
www.quasir.de
i
Context of the study The Declaration of the Euro‐Mediterranean Ministerial Conference on Water, adopted by Ministers and Heads of Delegations participating in the Euro‐Mediterranean Conference on Water held in Jordan on 22 December 2008 has launched the preparation of a strategy for water in the Mediterranean. One of the two focuses of this strategy is “the balance between the quantity of water used and the quantity of water available, including mitigating and preventing the consequences of droughts and water scarcity”. In this context, the French Development Agency (AFD) and Blue Plan have proposed, within the framework of the new Marseille Centre for Mediterranean Integration, to launch a regional programme on water demand management (WDM), whose main objective is to make the concept of WDM more operational for decision makers by: 1) building on existing projects in agriculture optimisation, 2) bringing economic analysis into national strategies and 3) organising share of experience between high level decision makers. This Programme is complementary to other regional initiatives related to water demand management in Mediterranean that provide training and capacity building. It is based on pilot studies that illustrate how this cost‐effectiveness approach can be a tool for water decision makers. The present “JORDAN WATER DEMAND MANAGEMENT STUDY” is one of these case‐studies on Middle Eastern, North African and Balkan Mediterranean countries. The study was conducted under the auspices and guidance of H.E. Maysoun Zoubi, Secretary General of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, with direct supervision from Eng. Ali Subah. The Steering Committee chaired by Eng. Ali Subah (MWI consisted of Serge Perrin (AFD), Qais Owais and Nayef Seder (JVA), Khair Hadidi (WAJ), Tobias El‐Fahem (BGR) and Johannes Stork (MWI‐CIM). Information and data were provided by the MWI, WAJ, JVA, the Department of Statistics (DoS), other relevant Ministries and the University of Jordan (UoJ). The scenario development relied on a series of “Story & Simulation (SAS)” workshops hosted by the MWI between October 2010 and April 2011. Additional, extensive support was provided by:
MWI – Nisreen Haddad and her team from the Water Demand Management Unit at the MWI
WAJ ‐ F. Al‐Azzam, A. Ulimat, J. Hijazi and B.Saleh
JVA ‐ Y. Hassan and F. Ejeilat
AFD – Frédéric Maurel and Lise Breuil
ii
Table of contents Context of the study ...................................................................................... ii Table of contents .......................................................................................... iii Tables and Figures ........................................................................................ iv List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................... v Key findings ................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 1: Prospective water demands of Jordan ......................................... 6 Chapter 2: Water demand by sectors ..........................................................12 Chapter 3: Water resources .........................................................................26 Chapter 4: Economic considerations ............................................................32 Conclusion ...................................................................................................41 References ...................................................................................................42
Appendix 1: Water Demand ............................................................................................. 43 Appendix 2: Water Supply ................................................................................................ 47 Appendix 3: Water Demand Scenarios ............................................................................. 50 Appendix 4: Water Values ................................................................................................ 59 Appendix 5: Cost Benefit Analyses of WDM measures .................................................... 65 Appendix 6: Strategies, policies and legislations ............................................................. 71
iii
Tables and Figures Table 1: Current cost estimates for WDM measures in Jordan ............................................... 32 Figure 1: Total Water Demand "Aspiration ................................................................................ 8 Figure 2: Total Water Demand "Trend" ..................................................................................... 9 Figure 3: Water re‐allocation from agriculture to municipal water use, "Trend" scenario (a) ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4: Water Use 2009 and 2025 ......................................................................................... 12 Figure 5: Balance of Municipal Water Use ............................................................................... 13 Figure 6 Industrial water use 2001 ‐ 2008 ............................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Recorded Irrigation Water Use ................................................................................. 17 Figure 8: Water Allocation in the Jordan Valley ....................................................................... 21 Figure 9: Remaining freshwater for agriculture ....................................................................... 22 Figure 10: Development of treated wastewater from municipal water use ........................... 23 Figure 11: Availability of water for agriculture ........................................................................ 24 Figure 12: Planned Water Supply 2010 – 2025 ........................................................................ 26 Figure 13: Comparison of expected water supply and water demand .................................... 31 Figure 14: Costs of water gains from WDM programs "Green Code", "Awareness" and "Institutions & policies" .............................................................. 33 Figure 15: Costs of water gains from water network rehabilitation (reduction of physical NRW) .................................................................................... 34 Figure 16: Cost and benefits of intended WDM measures in irrigation .................................. 36 Figure 17: Costs and benefits of water transfer from agriculture to municipal water use ..... 37
iv
List of Abbreviations AWC
Aqaba Water Company
CRW
Crop Water Requirement
DOS
Department of Statistics
HPC
Higher Population Council
IDARA
Project “Instituting Water Demand Management In Jordan”
IRR
Internal rate of return, estimated rate of interest of an investment
JVA
Jordan Valley Authority
Lcd
liters per capita and day
MCM
Million Cubic Meter
MWI
Ministry of Water and Irrigation
NGWA
Northern Governorates Water Administration (legal predecessor of Al‐ Yarmouk Water Company LLC (YWC) until mid‐2010)
NPV
Net present value, value of a timeline of costs, benefits or the difference between both discounted to their present value.
NRW
Non Revenue Water (cf. UFW, water loss)
NWMP
National Water Master Plan (MWI, 2004)
NWS
National Water Strategy ("Water for life", MWI 2009)
OS
Operation Surplus
PMU
Performance Management Unit (MWI)
UFW
Unaccounted‐ for Water (cf. NRW, water loss)
UNSNA
United Nations System of National Accounts
WAJ
Water Authority of Jordan
WDM
Water Demand Management
WDMU
Water Demand Management Unit at the MWI
YWC
Al‐Yarmouk Water Company LLC (cf. NGWA)
v
Key findings The Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI), supported by the French Development Agency, commissioned a consortium of Jordanian and international experts with a series of consecutive analyses and workshops on water demand management. The objective was to evaluate potential impacts of current water demand management (WDM) options under different assumptions about the development of frame conditions. The conclusive interpretation of the findings allow for the following statements and recommendations: The potential of WDM for decelerating the increase in demand from non‐agricultural sectors in Jordan rises from currently less than 10% to more than 30% in 2025
Water demand from all sectors except agriculture will presumably increase from currently 346 MCM/year to an amount in the range between 519 MCM/year and 920 MCM/year in 2025. About one third of this range around the current MWI estimate of 679 MCM/year in 2025 is determined by water demand management, two thirds by demographic and economic developments.
The difference between the possible minimal and maximal water demand from non‐ agricultural sectors in Jordan will about double until 2025, i.e. from currently 212 MCM/year to about 401 MCM/year.
Already resolved strategies by the MWI towards the reduction of water demand have the potential to save currently between 13 and 19 MCM/year, whereby around 30% fall upon reductions of physical losses. The potential savings will increase to a level of 107 to 171 MCM/year in 2025 with a potential share of 43 % from loss reduction and the remaining amount from savings in municipal water use.
However, scenarios on the lower end of water demand development imply an average municipal water consumption of about 80 liters per capita and day (lcd) in 2025, i.e. considerably below the threshold of 100 lcd recommended by WHO and USAID.
Jordan's prior‐ranking aspiration of a regionally comparable, nationwide average of 112 lcd, and a related decrease in agricultural water use may entail the need for reviewing options of water recycling.
The growing provision of municipalities with freshwater will rely to a substantial part on groundwater besides the expected water from desalinization. However, locations of groundwater extraction are mostly different from locations where treated wastewater will be available. Compensation of reductions in freshwater supply by recycled water e.g. in agriculture may call for more decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment in the future.
Costs of treated wastewater are competitive in locations with existing or at least expansible sewer systems, but may substantially increase in areas which need the entirely new construction of sewer and conveyance systems first. 1
WDM in agriculture may help to increase the economic efficiency of water use, but has only an ambivalent potential to decrease agricultural water demand.
Water is an important, but just one of the constraints for Jordanian farming systems and enterprises. A higher economic efficiency of water use leads to higher farm incomes and thus to an increasing potential for funding of additional irrigation operations. Limitations are a function of water availability rather than of water costs and water prices.
Water makes up for only 3 to 4% in average of the variable costs in irrigated agriculture. Increases in water tariffs would reduce water demand, but at the price of negative impact on average farm incomes due to changing decisions on cropping patterns because of risks from markets for products.
A water cap in agriculture, i.e. a regulatory limitation of water allocation, will cause structural effects, such as changes in the composition of farming systems and enterprises, and need accompanying measures that go beyond water demand management and agricultural production.
WDM measures in industry may provide additional, hitherto unexploited potentials.
Water demand by industry will most probably increase considerably over the next decades, but will still make up for a small fraction of the overall water demand only. However, in particular large industries will need large bulks of water in specific locations, which may interfere with local water demands by other sectors.
The potentials of water use chains, which incorporate industries, municipalities and agriculture in the flows of freshwater and treated wastewater, would be worth to become subject of further assessments.
Decisions on the allocation of water to specific industries in the future should include the request of compliance with regional or international standards in water requirements of up‐to‐date technologies.
The growing competition for water between and within the sectors of water demand leads to a growing need for economic assessments of cross‐sectoral system impacts.
Water demand from all sectors competes predominately for the same water resources. Partial least‐cost and cost‐benefit analyses, which consider costs and benefits of individual elements in the water infrastructure only, are increasingly insufficient for optimal decision making.
Effective WDM must consider options beyond the distribution and saving of water, too. Reduction in uncertainties from other sources and facilitation of access to other resources than water ‐such as capital, land or services ‐ may have secondary, but nevertheless tangible effects on water demand. This holds in particular for agriculture but also for industries.
2
The findings recommend the following five focal points for an efficient WDM policy:
Coordinate water demand policies with Jordan's overall goals and sectorial objectives. Gains in the economic efficiency of water use may – and do often ‐stand against development goals and economic efficiencies of other resources and in other sectors. This requires (1) the reduction of overlaps in mandates and the improvement of cooperation between water authorities as well as between ministries and (2) quantified social and economic assessments of policies with regard to the overall goals rather than with regard to water economics alone. The Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Ministry of Municipalities, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Environment should formulate a joint policy.
Prioritize the stability of a continuous water supply. A low risk in water supply in times of water demand reduces water use by the insurance rate, i.e. water stocked or overused in order to minimize risks from sudden interruption of supply. This holds for over‐irrigation in agriculture as well as for excessive stocking of water from water tankers by resident households. Possible actions in this regard range from recharge of the groundwater aquifers as "natural buffer capacities", other decentralized water storage capacities and the continued reclamation of wastewater up to the respective planning of storage elements in the intended mega‐projects.
Support resident households in their efforts for water savings and water recycling. Potential gains from water demand management result mostly from lower expansion rates of water use per capita. Increasing benefits from water use without proportional increases in water consumption, e.g. by measures from Jordan's "green code", requires investments which may not be shouldered by families or property owners alone. The same holds for installations in urban rainwater harvesting, greywater use and sewerage.
Address the question on water for agriculture from the focus of rural area development. Decisions on water distribution and caps in water for irrigation must take into account (1) the specific functions of land use systems, (2) the economic and operational fundamentals of the different types of farming systems, (3) the desired objectives towards modernization and structural adjustments in the agricultural sector and (4) the livelihood and environmental structures that Jordan wants to preserve. The central technical challenges and opportunities are the control of groundwater over‐abstraction and the continuous expansion of water recycling.
Develop the Water Information System (WIS) into a Water Management Information System (MIS). The Jordanian water administrations and utilities already run extensive systems of data collection and partial analyses. The resulting data and information bases are fragmented and scattered in several sub‐units of the authorities and the MWI, which is an obstacle with regard to quick and reliable information for the Ministry's decision makers. There is an urgent need for consolidation and transformation into a Management Information System with defined workflows and specifications that include economic performance indicators. 3
Introduction Jordan’s economic opportunities, social necessities and aspirations entail a significant growth in water demand over the last decades and will continue to do so in the future. This coincides with a situation where the exploitation of renewable natural water resources already exceeds a sustainable level and the reclamation of non‐conventional water resources requires considerable investments. The resulting increase in water costs and values amplifies the role of economic reflections in decision making on water resource management as well as on the allocation and use of water in the different sectors of water consumption. Jordan’s water management in the past has been dominated by the necessity to supply water. Initial approaches to the management of water demand focused in particular on agriculture in the Jordan Valley through operations on water‐distribution by the Jordan Valley Authority (JVA). Water demand management (WDM) in other sectors than agriculture gained momentum with the establishment of a Water Demand Management Unit (WDMU) at the Ministry of Water and Irrigation (MWI) in 2002. More recent activities of the Unit include the USAID‐funded IDARA project (2007‐2011), which supported the build‐up of institutional capacities, and a close cooperation with Jordan’s private utilities in planning and prognoses of future water requirements. The MWI defined WDM as one of the pillars in its strategy of a “rational water resources management consistent with overall national socio‐economic development objectives”. Tentative milestones of this strategy formulation are Jordan’s National Water Master Plan (NWMP, 2004) and its National Water Strategy 2008‐2022 (“Water for Life”, NWS, 2009), which are subject to continuous updates and enhancements. This indicates that WDM in Jordan intends to go beyond the economic pricing of water and partial criteria of water use efficiency, such as water productivities in different sectors of water consumption. The present study inserts itself into the development of an efficient strategy by contributing analyses and projections about the framework, results and economic consequences of options in Water Demand Management. It builds on information from the broad data bases provided by the MWI, JVA, Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ), Department of Statistics (DOS), Water and Environmental Research and Study Centre (WERSC, University of Jordan) and other Jordanian organizations, current research results on water in Jordan as well as on the results from four workshops and numerous interviews with Jordanian professionals from different fields of expertise. The main objectives of the study were
to bring economic analysis into Jordan water policy and help prioritizing actions according to their cost‐effectiveness
to propose a cost‐effectiveness analysis of these different actions, and to
4
enhance ownership of the activities proposed under the Jordan National Water Strategy by ensuring the involvement of key stakeholders and authorities.
Work steps towards the fulfillment of these objectives included:
A review and analysis of current water politics and the status of water resources
an assessment of future trends in water resources, available water supply, water demand, water pollution and of the impact from selected existing WDM programs in Jordan,
the calculation of economic values of water in the different sectors of water demand,
the workshop‐based development and impact assessment of alternative scenarios on the development of water demand in Jordan and
the identification of pre‐conditions for the successful implementation of each scenario.
This report summarizes and integrates information from the more detailed reports on each of the work steps.
5
Chapter 1: Prospective water demands of Jordan Jordan's water requirements started to exceed its natural water resources already in the 1970s (1). The Jordanian government undertook substantial efforts over the last decades to alleviate this deficit through the mobilization of additional water resources, which included surface water, water recycling, desalination and extractions from non‐renewable aquifers. However, the gap between sustainable water supply and water consumption still increases until today. Demographic and economic growth as well as the intended developments in mining and new energies will magnify the Box 1: Insecurities in Water Demand speed of growth in water demand.
predictions until 2025
The recorded total water use in 2009 amounted to 883 MCM/year (2), which may be less than the factual water use due to partially uncontrolled abstraction of groundwater in particular by agricultural enterprises and farming systems. Prognoses of the total water use in 2025 by the MWI vary around 1,500 and 1,600 MCM/year, but are subject to a number of potential variations and assumptions about the development of determining factors (see Box 1). These prognoses already contain assumed effects of current decisions on water demand management by the MWI. The "business‐as‐usual" scenario, i.e. the continuation of water use under the current conditions without interventions of the MWI would end up with about 1.998 MCM/year in 2025. 1
Drivers: Demographic Growth: may vary between 2.1 and 2.6% per year Economic Growth: growth in industrial water demand may vary between 1.3 and 3.9 % per year Decisions: Municipal Water Demand: will increase to 93 lcd according to trend, but socio‐ political target is about 112 lcd Non‐Revenue Water: aspired reduction from 43% today down to 24% in 2025, but 35% in 2025 may be more realistic according to the utilities Urban Water Demand Management: theoretical potentials for savings in domestic water use amount to 21.4% in 2025, but viability is disputable Water for agriculture: a water cap is decided, but the level is still under discussion.
Results from scenario‐based planning , i.e. the comparison of situations with different sets of developments in drivers and decisions, indicate a range between 1,219 MCM and 1,620 MCM in 2025. This holds under the assumption of a cap in water for agriculture at a level of 700 MCM/year. Today, about 90% of the difference between minimum and maximum are a function of the variations in demographic and economic growth, i.e. drivers, which hardly can be influenced by decision making on water demand management. This proportion will shrink to about 70%
1
For detailed scenario assumptions and results see appendix 3 6
until 2025. The remaining 30%, which equal about 120 MCM in 2025, depend on water demand management and the development of water use per capita. The considered components of this water demand management include the success in reducing water losses (NRW) and in the implementation of water saving measures in municipal water use, which includes domestic water use as well as water for tourism, commerce, education, health, governmental offices, worship and other urban infrastructure.
1.1 Aspiration – 112 lcd in average nationwide The current domestic water use in Jordan is, with a national average of about 70 lcd, considerably lower than the 100 lcd, which were proposed by the WHO as the lower bound of an optimal water access (3). The factual, nationwide average municipal water demand, which includes besides domestic water also water for commerce, education, health, governmental offices, worship and other urban infrastructure, is estimated to be up to 112 lcd. Variances within the country range from 102 lcd in Karak up to 138 lcd in Amman. Jordan's water strategy (4) formulates the goal to increase the nationwide municipal water supply to a nationwide average of 120 lcd in 2022. However, the current planning by the MWI calculates with the mentioned 112 lcd (without water losses), but aspires to achieve this goal already in the immediate future. This is still below the regional target value of 120 to 150 l/c/d but marks a substantial improvement to the past. Water demand management measures, which are supposed to alleviate the sharply growing water demand under this scenario, are the reduction of water losses (NRW) and the implementation of household water saving measures. Both approaches are Box 2: Non‐Revenue Water still in the stage of planning and early implementation, so there is still NRW, which is called Unaccounted‐for insecurity about the size of their factual Water (UFW) in the National Water Master success in the future. Plan, consists out of: A comparison between scenario (a), where NRW reduction achieves only a level of 35% and water savings in households have nearly no effects, and the scenario (b), where NRW reduction succeeds in achieving the intended level of 24% and water saving measures allow for a reduction of domestic water needs by 21.4%, indicates that The difference in total water demand between both scenarios would
Administrative losses: this water is part of the water use, but does not yield revenues for the utility. Physical losses: Losses due to leakages and other inefficiencies in conveyance systems. The working assumption of the MWI assumes an equal share of both types of losses in the current 43% NRW in municipal water supply. Assumed reductions in the scenario calculations consider physical losses only. 7
increase from about 1% today to about 11% or 150 MCM/year in 2025 under the assumption of the expected, medium demographic and economic growth, The difference in 2025 would amount at about 10% or 132 MCM/year if demographic and economic growth is low and at about 12% or 171 MCM/year if demographic and economic growth is high. The potential range of Jordan's total water demand in 2025 would extend from 1.312 MCM/year in scenario (b) with a low demographic and economic growth up to 1.620 MCM/year in scenario (a) with a high demographic and economic growth. The value2 of the total water demand would increase over the period from 2010 to 2025 by about 78.7 % under scenario (a) and by about 75.8 % under scenario (b). The difference results from the lower proportion of high‐value municipal water use and the respective higher proportion of low‐value water use for irrigation in Figure 1: Total Water Demand "Aspiration scenario (b). 2000 1800 million cube meter / year
However, the economic efficiency depends on the difference between the values and the required costs for water supply. The assumption of a similar water supply implies equal costs in both scenarios. The break‐even point, i.e. the point at which scenario (b) becomes economically more efficient than scenario (a) would be reached if
1600 1400 1200
1287 1229 1190
1410 1397 1280
1559 1520 1371
1000 800 600 400 200 0 2015 current MWI planning
2020
2025
scenario (a)
scenario (b)
NB: figures represent medium situation, ‡ indicates upper and lower bound
costs for water supply would increase from about 0.49 JD/m³ (weighted average over all sectors under "Aspiration" scenario assumptions) by 0.25 JD/m³ in 2015 and 0.28 JD/m³ in 2025 or, alternatively the added value from the agricultural sector in scenario (b) would increase from its current average of 0.59 JD/m³ to about 0.77 JD/m³ in 2015, 0.79 JD/m³ in 2020 and 0.80 JD/m³ in 2025. A valuation of the remaining physical losses in both situations with their lowest, possible returns, i.e. water use in agriculture with about 0.59 JD/m³, indicates, that a full saving of these losses would justify additional investments of up to about 40 million JD/year in scenario (a). Remaining physical losses in scenario (b) are considerably lower due to the
2
Methods and results of water valuation in different sectors are compiled in appendix 4 8
assumed higher efficiency in NRW reduction and would justify additional investments of 14 million JD/year in 2025.
1.2 Trend – continuation of past developments in water demand A continuation of the trends over the last decades would lead to a nationwide average of 88 lcd of domestic water use in 2025 plus an additional 5 lcd for other municipal water demands. The differences in municipal water demand within the country would vary between 68 lcd in the governorate of Ajloun and about 110 lcd in Amman and Aqaba, whereby the population in all governorates except for these both would receive less than 100 lcd in 2025. т‡ The calculations of the both scenarios (a) and (b) under trend assumptions indicate that
The difference in 2025 would amount to 107 MCM/year if demographic and economic growth is low and at about 117 MCM/year if demographic and economic growth is high.
Figure 2: Total Water Demand "Trend" 2000 1800 million cube meter / year
The difference in total water demand between both scenarios would increase from about 6% in 2015 to about 8.7 % or 110 MCM/year in 2025 under the assumption of the expected, medium demographic and economic growth,
1600 1400 1200
1229 11081045
1397 1239 1149
1559 1353 1244
1000 800 600 400 200 0 2015 current MWI planning
2020
2025
scenario (a)
scenario (b)
NB: figures represent medium situation, ‡ indicates upper and lower bound
The potential range of Jordan's total water demand in 2025 would extend from 1.219 MCM/year in scenario (b) with a low demographic and economic growth up to 1.409 MCM/year in scenario (a) with a high demographic and economic growth (lower and upper bound). The value of the total water demand under "Trend" assumptions would increase over the period from 2010 to 2025 by about 92 % in scenario (a) and by about 89 % in scenario (b). The difference results again from the lower proportion of high‐value municipal water use and the respective higher proportion of low‐value water use for irrigation in scenario (b). The break‐even point, i.e. the point at which scenario (b) becomes economically more efficient than scenario (a) would be reached if
9
costs for water supply would increase from the currently about 0.43 JD/m³ (weighted average over all sectors under "Trend" assumptions) by 0.19 JD/m³ in 2015 and 0.21 JD/m³ in 2025 or, alternatively the added value from the agricultural sector in scenario (b) would increase from its current average of 0.59 JD/m³ to about 0.68 JD/m³ in 2015, 0.70 JD/m³ in 2020 and 0.72 JD/m³ in 2025. A valuation of the remaining physical losses in both situations with their lowest, possible returns, i.e. water use in agriculture with about 0.59 JD/m³, indicates, that a full saving of these losses would justify additional investments of up to about 25.7 million JD/year in scenario (a). Remaining physical losses in scenario (b) are considerably lower due to the assumed higher efficiency in NRW reduction and would justify additional investments of 11 million JD/year in 2025.
1.3 Major differences between "Aspiration" and "Trend" Increasing the municipal water use of Jordanians from trend extrapolations to a regionally comparable level of 112 lcd would require an additional amount of 180 MCM of water in 2015 and of 167 MCM in 2025. This holds under the assumption of medium developments in demography and economy. Low growth in demography and economy would decrease the additionally required water to 124 MCM in 2015 and 118 MCM in 2025. High growth in both drivers would increase the additionally required water to 224 MCM in 2015 and 211 MCM in 2025. The decreasing difference between 2015 and 2025 is in all cases due to the steady increase of daily water use under "Trend" assumptions over the observed period. Changes in demographic and economic developments have considerably stronger effects on the total water demand under "Aspiration" assumptions than under "Trend" assumptions. Consequences for planning under "Aspiration" assumptions include the necessity for a more diligent consideration of contingency plans for potential disproportionate increases in water requirements as well as the related higher investment costs in water supply and storage infrastructure. Investments in water savings under "Trend" assumptions become already cost‐effective at a lower level of increases in water costs or with lower increases in water use efficiency in agriculture. This effect originates from the higher value of municipal water compared to water for agriculture and the higher proportion of the former in the total water use under "Aspiration" assumptions. It is correct from an economic point of view, but disregards the fact that the value of water for municipal purposes is, amongst others, a function of water costs. This emphasizes the difference between financial budget calculations of the government, which may come to different results, and economic evaluations, which focus on the value added of the whole national economy only.
10
1.4 Intersectoral re‐allocation One option for achieving the aspired 112 lcd without additional pressure on Jordan's already stressed water balance is the transfer of freshwater from the agricultural to the municipal sector of water demand. The analysis of effects from such transfers was based on the "Trend" scenario (a), i.e. the situation where NRW are reduced to 35% in 2025 and water savings in households have nearly no effects. The initial municipal water use amounts to 74 MCM/year and increases under the scenario on water re‐allocation continuously to 112 lcd in 2020. The cap on water for agriculture was assumed at 700 MCM in the initial year and required water for covering the increasing municipal water needs was Figure 3: Water re‐allocation from agriculture to municipal taken from this amount in water use, "Trend" scenario (a) the following years. 1600
million cube meter
The additional require‐ 1400 1200 ments of municipal water 1000 demand would cause a 800 reallocation from 600 agriculture of about 70 400 MCM/year already in 2015. 200 This amount more than 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 doubles to 149 MCM/year Nuclear Power 0 0 50 100 until 2020, the year when Touristic 6 10 18 19 municipal water demands Industrial 52 78 91 100 would be adjusted to a Municipal 258 385 527 573 regionally comparative Agriculture 700 635 552 560 level. A low demographic Agriculture Municipal Industrial and economic growth Touristic Nuclear Power would lead to an about 1.2% lower increase, a high developments in these drivers to a 7.4% higher increase in municipal water demand. However, recycling of wastewater from municipal water use and decreasing physical NRW would lessen the impact on water re‐allocation for agriculture already by 5 MCM in 2015. The combined effects would exceed the required water withdrawal for agriculture from around 2020 and lead to a slight recovery of water availability for agriculture until 2025, assuming that treated wastewater amounts to 50% of municipal water use. The higher value of water use in the municipal sector compared to the water value in agriculture leads to an increase of the total value of water use by about 1 %. However, losses in agricultural net returns (operation surplus) would amount to about 36 million JD/year in 2015, 83 million JD/year around 2020 and 79 million JD/year in 2025.
11
Chapter 2: Water demand by sectors Figure 4: Water Use 2009 and 2025 1800
1,556
1600 million cube meter/year
Mechanisms that determine water demand in Jordan allow for a distinction between five major sectors: (i) municipal water requirements, (ii) tourism, (iii) industry including new activities in oil shale and uranium mining, (iv) agriculture and (v) ecosystems and nature. Nuclear energy will add a sixth sector with the intended construction of nuclear power plants after 2020.
1,219
1400 1200 1000
6 37
800 600
100 26 117
100 40 122
613
658
700
700
319
303
400 200
100 11 89
883
1,620
537
700
0 The recorded total water use in min MWI max 2009 amounted to 883 MCM/year 2009 2025 (2), which is most probably less than the factual water use due to Agriculture Municipal Industrial partially uncontrolled abstraction Tourism Nuclear Power of groundwater in particular by agricultural enterprises and Source: 2009 by MWI, 2025 by MWI and scenario calculations assumed cap of irrigation water for agriculture: 700 MCM/year farming systems. Recorded water use by agriculture amounted to 537 MCM in 2009, which was equaled about 61% of the recorded total water use. Water for municipal water use was the second largest position with about 34 % and water for industry and tourism made up for the remaining 5%.
The results from the scenario analyses showed that the total water demand in 2025 may vary between 1,219 and 1,620 MCM. Contributions to this growth and its variances differ considerably between the sectors of water demand.
2.1 Municipal water use Municipal water use comprises domestic water use and water for services, such as commerce, health, education, worship, governmental offices and communal green spaces. This sector receives water through the public water network which is managed by the WAJ and Jordan's three public utilities. The total municipal water use reached 313 MCM in 2009 and is expected to increase up to about 481 MCM in 2025 according to Jordan's water strategy (4).
12
Figure 5: Balance of Municipal Water Use 700
613
600 million cube meter
However, assumptions on municipal water demand development vary with regard to nearly all underlying determinants, such as demographic growth, water demand and purchasing power per capita, potential impacts from water savings programs and water losses. Extremes in scenario estimations range from a municipal water use of 319 MCM up to 658 MCM in 2025 with a current "most likely" assumption of 613 MCM by the MWI.
515
500
418
400 309
320
300
223
247
165
200 102
117
2009
2010
100 0 Municipal Water Use
2015
2020
2025
Treated Wastewater
Municipal water use is the major Source: MWI, 2010 (2) producer of wastewater. About 33% of water for municipal use returned as treated wastewater to water supply in 2009 (2). Estimates for the future vary between 40% in 2025 according to the current MWI planning (2) and 51% in 2022 according to Jordan's Water Strategy (4). This implies that all additional water for municipal water use must be considered by its impacts on both sides of Jordan's water supply & demand balance. Jordan's major tools for Water Demand Management in this sector are currently the reduction of NRW and the deceleration of increases in daily water use by residents and non‐ residential users through water saving devices and information. Non‐Revenue Water (NRW) was up to 43% in 2009 and is expected to decrease to 25% until 2025 according to Jordan's Water Strategy (4). Improvements are expected in particular with regard to physical losses, which make up for about half of the NRW (cf. Box 2). Jordan's water strategy estimates an increase in total municipal water demand by 159 MCM until 2022. NRW would thus decrease from the 139 MCM in 2009 to about 120 MCM in 2022 according to the strategic goal. However, only savings in physical losses will have an effect on the water balance. Such savings would amount to a maximum of about 86.6 MCM/year under the most optimistic assumption that all anticipated loss reductions would be related to physical losses only. This would compensate for about 54% of the expected increase in municipal water demand, but would still leave the need to cover a gap of about 72.4 MCM/year in municipal demand. The current estimates for decelerating the increase in daily water use by residents and non‐ residential users through water saving devices and information rely on calculations from experimental installations. The assumed potential savings of more than 20% already in 2012 are very optimistic and will require substantial efforts for implementation.
13
However, the minimum water use in the municipal sector of 319 MCM in 2025 relies on the assumption that municipal water use does not grow faster than its trend in the past and that all of these expected water savings can be achieved. The average water supply would then amount to 69 liters per capita and day only, which is in the area of the current water provision level and articulately below regionally comparable standards. The costs of water supply via public networks vary between 0.50 JD/m³ and 0.61 JD/m³. However, the apportionment of these costs on billed water only increases the costs per m³ to a range from 0.8 and 0.9 JD/m³ in Amman, Aqaba, and the northern regions and up to 1.20 JD/m³ in the rest of Jordan. Current average water tariffs for residential Box 3: Definitions customers cover with 0.42 JD/m³ only a part of the full costs. Non‐residents, e.g. Water demand = requested water for commerce and offices, pay 1 JD/m³. (monetary and non‐monetary) beneficial Wastewater discharge adds to both tariffs use with another 0.39 JD/m³ and 0.59 JD/m³, Water requirement = water required for respectively. Costs of water provision will increase in the future due to the additionally required water from new investment projects, such as the Disi water conveyance, water network rehabilitation, Jordan Read Sea Conveyance or its alternative, the Red‐Sea‐ Dead‐Sea Project. As an example, estimated costs of Disi water supply are up to about 0.8 JD/m³. Adding distribution cost and accounting for NRW at the current level would bring the costs of delivering Disi water to customers up to around 1.5 JD/m³.
sustaining living standards (households), operations (industry, tourism, agriculture) and functionality (e.g. nature, agriculture)
Water use = water demand covered by water supply Water consumption = water use minus return flows Water supply = water provision from developed water resources Water allocation = determined amount of water supply for a specific purpose or region
The value of water3 for municipal water users depends on the current costs for water provision and the opportunity costs of a potential use of this water by another client. This implies for the comparison with other sectors that an increase in water costs increases the value of municipal water value, but decreases the net value of water in other sectors. Current water values range from 1.36 JD/m³ in Amman to 1.61 JD/m³ in the northern regions with a nationwide average of 1.49 JD/m³.
3
On methods and results for water valuation see appendix 4 14
2.2 Industrial water use Industrial water use includes both, industries, which receive their water from public water network, and industries with own water wells. Groundwater is with about 90% the main source of water for industry. Industrial water use increased sharply over the last decade up to around 46 MCM in 2008, but annual growth rates differ considerably. About half of this water went to large industries, e.g. mining and chemicals, which may possess the required financial background for own wastewater treatment and water recycling facilities. Major consumers include the petrol refineries in the governorate of Zarqa, potash and phosphate mining in Karak and phosphate mining in Ma'an, which make up for about 75% of the water use in large industries. Figure 6 Industrial water use 2001 ‐ 2008
The estimates on industrial water use incorporate the water requirements of current energy production and scheduled new mining activities for oil shale and uranium, which are supposed to start around 2015. Expected water demands and uses of these "new energies" will rise from to 17 MCM/year in the initial year up to 42 MCM/year in 2025.
50
46
30%
45 35
30
20%
20 21 18 19 19 17 16 12 13 13 11 10 7 8 5 6 6
15%
28
30 25 20 15 10
25%
37 30 25
24
10%
annual growth
40 million cube meter
Jordan’s Water Strategy (4) estimated water requirements by industries to reach about 163 MCM in 2022, but newer prognoses by the MWI see the expected industrial water use at 117 MCM in 2025. Scenario calculations indicate a potential range between 89 and 122 MCM.
5%
5 0%
0
Total industrial water use Large industries Other industries annual growth (%) Source: based on figures from MWI, 2010
Additional industrial water uses arises from the intended construction of nuclear power plants starting around 2020. The factual water demand from these plants relies on still outstanding final decisions about their location and technology. The current working assumption of the MWI is up to 21 MCM/year per nuclear power plant, whereby the planning foresees to meet parts of these water requirements by treated wastewater. Costs and tariffs of water supply for industries with water supply through public networks correspond to the specifications for non‐resident users of municipal water. Costs and tariffs for industries with own wells depend on their own operation costs and their agreement with the water providing authority.
15
Applied and foreseen Water Demand Management tools for the industrial sector focus on wastewater treatment, i.e. the reduction of water consumption instead of water use. All major industries and mines are supposed to be connected or equipped with wastewater treatment plants until 2022, which would make up for 45 to 61 MCM/year of treated wastewater under the assumption of a recycling rate of 50%. However, Jordan's Water Strategy (4) foresees only 27 MCM of treated wastewater for industrial use in 2022, which would leave some leeway for water chain management, i.e. the use of recycled water from industries in agriculture or for environmental purposes. Recycling of water from Nuclear Power Plants for use in other sectors is currently not regarded as an option. Water values vary highly between industries and are naturally lowest in sectors with high water demands. Industrial sectors with the lowest profits per m³ in the inflation‐adjusted 6‐ year average were mining and quarrying, chemicals and food products, which are simultaneously the largest industrial water consumers. Their weighted operation surplus, i.e. the approximate pre‐tax profit income4, amounted from 38 up to 46 JD/m³. Sectors on the upper end of profits per m³ include oil, gas, coke and petroleum products with 680 up to more than 5.574 JD/m³, but consume less than 2% of the total water for industries. The total operation surplus of Jordan’s industries, amounted to about 2.48 billion JD in 2008, which corresponded to an average operation surplus of about 55 JD/m³. This was well below the 6‐year average of about 78 JD/m³.
2.3 Water use by tourism Water use by tourism includes water for hotels, restaurants and other tourist services and facilities. Water to this sector is supplied by WAJ and the utilities via the domestic water network and is considered administratively as part of the municipal water supply. Touristic water use reached around 10 MCM in 2007 and is expected to reach 29 MCM by year 2025 (NWS, 2009). Scenario calculations set the range for 2025 between 11 and 40 MCM. The majority of water use in tourism arises in the three touristic centers Amman, Aqaba and the hotel resorts along the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. Applied and foreseen Water Demand Management tools comprise amongst others greywater and water recycling. International studies show that water saving techniques allow for a decrease of water use in hotels by about 20% without affecting standards or clients' satisfaction. However, these studies were conducted in countries with moderate climates and experiences in Jordan are still outstanding.
4
The operation surplus represents the difference between the gross value added including producer subsidies minus (1) the consumption of fixed capital, (2) compensation for employees and (3) indirect taxes (definition according to the United Nations System of National Accounts, UNSNA) 16
A complete separation of water demands by tourism from transport and commercial services for the local population is difficult. Hotels and restaurants consumed about 7.8 MCM in 2007, which corresponded to an operation surplus of about 38 JD/m³. Water values in other sectors where distinctly higher and ranged from 66 JD/m3 in food and beverages sales up to 303 JD/m3 for the repair of personnel and household equipment (cf. appendix 4).
2.4 Agricultural water use
Figures on agricultural water use do not include water use by rainfed agriculture, which makes up for slightly more than half of Jordan's 260 thousand hectares of cultivated areas. About 70% of Jordan's agricultural holdings have access to irrigation for at least parts of their cultivated areas (5).
million cube meter
Agricultural water use comprises mainly irrigation , where recorded water use was up to more than 584 MCM in 2009, and to a far lesser extent intensive livestock husbandry, e.g. poultry farms, with a water use of less than 10 MCM in the same year. Figure 7: Recorded Irrigation Water Use 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
The sources for irrigation water and challenges in water supply distinguish two major regions of agricultural water year use. Irrigated agriculture in the Jordan Valley relies predominantly on surface Highlands Jordan Valley Source: based on figures from MWI, 2010 water, which includes water from the tributaries to the Jordan River, water flows from the side Wadis and treated wastewater from the urban areas in the highlands. Irrigated agriculture in the highlands east and south of the Jordan Valley relies predominantly on groundwater and is thus a direct competitor for the current major water source of municipal and industrial water supply. The assessment of factual agricultural water use varies by about 44% between the recorded water abstractions by Jordan's water authorities and the physiological crop water requirements (CWR) of the recorded cultivation (7). Recorded water abstraction for agriculture amounted to 537 MCM in 2009 according to the MWI, while estimates based on CRWs amounted up to about 960 MCM for the same year. Assumed reasons for the difference are a combination of unrecorded groundwater abstractions and depressions or even failure of yields. Both figures indicate that irrigated agriculture is the largest water user in Jordan. In 2007, 64% of the annual total water use was for irrigated agriculture (NWS, 2009). Irrigated agriculture used 50% of the pumped groundwater for all purposes which summed up to 216 MCM for that year and equaled about 79% of the total renewable groundwater resources.
17
Agricultural production contributes only about 3.6% to Jordan's GDP and employs 2% of its labor force, but 30% of Jordan's population lives in rural areas. Arguments for water supply to agriculture do thus not only rely on production values but also on functions of agriculture in the preservation and development of rural systems and areas. The Jordanian government decided to approach future water allocation to agriculture by a combined strategy of control of hitherto unrecorded groundwater abstractions and a simultaneous cap of water for this sector. The intended level of the cap is still under discussion. Current ideas range between 700 and 1,000 MCM/year, which would put the water allocation somewhere between half and the upper limit of the estimated physiological water demand for the current cropping pattern on Jordan's cultivated areas. Most of the increased control of groundwater wells and the water cap will affect agriculture in the highlands, which use currently about 70% of the recorded total irrigation water. Applied and foreseen Water Demand Management tools in agriculture focus in particular on increases in irrigation efficiency, water tariffing and water caps. Increases in water efficiency include technical as well as managerial improvements, e.g. the promotion of water users associations and participatory irrigation management (PIM). The evaluation of first experiences with PIM in the Jordan Valley yielded promising results with regard to cost reduction in water supply and increases in economic water use efficiency. However, all measures which focus on irrigation efficiency and water productivity promoted the extension of the now even more profitable agricultural activities and increased rather than decreased water demands. The Jordan Valley Authority uses blocked tariffs with increasing prices for higher water quotas already since the 1990s. The experience shows that this also did not lead to decreases in water demand, which is a function of land tenureship, rental agreements, resource endowment of different types of farming systems and the situation of alternative incomes for farming families. Water quotas and charges for over‐abstraction of wells in the highlands, as stipulated in the Underground Water Control By‐Law no. 85 (2002) and its amendments (2003, 2004, 2007), did not solve the problem of unsustainable groundwater withdrawal either. Jordan's water strategy foresees a cap for water use in agriculture and an enforced control of groundwater abstraction from currently private wells and boreholes. The consequences and secondary effects of these measures will highly depend on the conditions of these regulatory measures. Costs of water for irrigation depend on the source of water and vary widely. The Jordan Valley Authority (JVA) applies a block tariff structure and charges about 0,02 JD/m³ for water from the pressurized irrigation water system, which covers approximately 40% percent of the costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) and 10% of the full costs. However, irrigation in the Jordan Valley also uses treated and blended wastewater, which would be of less use otherwise without additional and expensive steps for purification.
18
Costs of water for irrigation in the highlands depend in the first place on the investments and O&M costs for the private well operators. Tariffs by the water authorities are up to 0.025 JD/m³ for non‐licensed wells and increase stepwise with the amount of water extraction. Owners of licensed wells pay this tariff only for over‐abstraction, i.e. above 150.000 m³/year. Proportional variations in the value of water for agricultural production are on a similar scale as for water in industry, but considerable lower in absolute terms. The operation surplus in crop production ranged from 0.011 JD/m³ for some millet varieties up to nearly 4 JD/m³ for cucumbers in 2008. The average, weighted operation surplus per group of crops amounted to 0.288 JD/m³ for field crops, 0.789 JD/m³ for vegetables and 0.149 JD/m³ for fruit trees under the cropping pattern in 2008. The overall average operation surplus in crop production amounted to 0.563 JD/m³ in 2008. However, these values are subject to changes between the years due to the variations in prices for agricultural products as well as in cropping patterns. Livestock husbandry consumes less than 2% of the water for agricultural purposes but yields much higher returns per m³. However, accessible data allowed for the calculation of the Gross Value Added only, which ranged in 2009 from about 9 JD/m³ for laying hens up to 56 JD/m³ in hatcheries. The average Gross Value Added in Livestock production amounted to 18.06 JD/m³ in the year of reference.
2.4.1 Starting points for WDM in the agricultural sector Agriculture is the only sector of water demand where an intra‐sectoral reallocation of water is likely. But even in this sector reallocation of water would be restricted to exchanges within a given location. A mere transfer of water to more water‐efficient crops would benefit already specialized rich farmers, but discriminates against poorer farmers, who depend on diversification in order to minimize risk and do not possess the required capacities, e.g. capital, for the required adjustments of production and marketing structures. Expectable consequences from an unidirectional focus on economic water use efficiency alone would include in the first place:
a structural change in Jordanian farming systems towards larger enterprises and a decline in smaller family farms and traditional farming and
an increase in agricultural water demand due to the improved economics of irrigation water use in combination with farming enterprises, which possess the required endowment in land and capital for enhancing their farming business.
Suitable policies and instruments to curtail agricultural water demand without undesired consequences will depend on the identification of the specific functions of land use systems, the economic and operational fundamentals of the different types of farming systems, the desired objectives towards modernization and structural adjustments in the agricultural sector and the livelihood and environmental structures that Jordan wants to preserve.
19
The central technical challenge is the improvement of farmers' access to irrigation techniques and training under the simultaneous consideration of
an equitable provision of services to all farmers, which may require additional adjustments in the economic frame conditions , e.g. access to capital, for farms with low resource endowment and the respective harmonization in the planning of local rural development,
the control of groundwater abstraction, which allows for its reduction to a sustainable level, and
the further expansion of water recycling, i.e. treated wastewater use, which provides the major alternative water resource.
Data for the required farming systems analyses, which have to include the socio‐economic situation of concerned farming families, exist in part for the Jordan Valley, even if these data from 2003 are somewhat outdated. Respective information on farming systems in the highlands may be hidden in the extensive data bases of Jordan's agricultural surveys, but would require a comprehensive re‐structuring and analysis of these data. However, some known bottlenecks for farmers offer first suggestions for starting points of WDM measures, which may have the double potential of improving the situation of farmers without simultaneous incentives for more water use.
Timing of water supply: Gaps between the formation of water quantities and the need for water in agriculture require storage facilities and an outflow management, which correspond to water requirements in agriculture. A better balance of the management of water storage systems with water needs in agriculture would improve water use efficiency in agriculture even without changes in the current cropping patterns. Groundwater for irrigation is basically available “on demand”. Water from treatment facilities and other sources provide a more or less constant flow, which requires storage until relevant irrigation periods. The implementation of storage facilities leads not only to additional demands to capital for the investments but also requires additional space. The latter may become a substantial factor in particular when those storage facilities are placed on land of farming systems with comparatively low land endowment and/or high potential returns per dunum. Central storage facilities for larger amounts of water are mostly available in the Jordan Valley and adjacent side valley (wadis). Timing of water distribution via the conveyance system connected to King Abdullah Canal (KAC) has to respond to a multitude of combinations of farmers’ individual objectives, amongst which maximum profits and minimal risk may be the most important. The comparison between JVA’s intra‐annual water distribution, the optimal water distribution for attaining maximum profits and the respective distribution for minimizing risk indicates the difficulty in managing centrally stored water resources (cf. fig. 8).
20
Figure 8: Water Allocation in the Jordan Valley 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Sep
Aug
July
June
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
0 Oct
million cube meter
Reliability of water supply: Experience from participatory irrigation management (PIM) in the Jordan Valley shows that an increase in the reliability of water supply reduces (i) inefficient water consumption through over‐ irrigation and (ii) the risk of water efficient, but water‐stress sensitive cropping patterns. The positive outcome of the PIM pilot projects prompted the JVA already to plan for an extension of this approach to all irrigation basins of the Jordan Valley.
Local control of water resources Actual Optimal by water users associations in the highlands is – at least in some Source: Salman et al., 2011 (8) areas – already a traditional way to handle communal water resources. The embedding of hitherto private boreholes in local PIM approaches may yield comparative positive effects. Other uncertainties (“risks”) in agricultural production: Significant variations in market prices and in the comparative advantage of individual crops, i.e. variations in the relation between market prices of specific crops, lead to cropping systems which are often sub‐ optimal with regard to the utilization of water resources. However, they are optimal with regard to the achievement of farmers’ goals, i.e. their chosen combination between maximal profitability and minimal risk. An important element is dynamics, i.e. farmers’ choices may not be optimal with regard to a specific year, but focus on the sustainability of farm operations over longer time spans. This holds in particular for investment decisions in perennial crops, e.g. fruit trees and olives, and farm infrastructure, e.g. irrigation systems, farm machinery and green houses. Reduction of those risks, e.g. by improving farmers' position in marketing, would allow for an increase in agricultural incomes with comparatively low distortions in the competitiveness of existing farming systems. Different constraints in different farming systems: Water is a scarce production factor for most Jordanian farming enterprises, but still just one of their constraints and probably not always the most decisive one. Access to capital, prices of production factors, market
21
access and competition for resources of farming families by alternative employments in off‐farm sectors often play an at least equally important role. The consequences of changes in water availability and quality depend much more on the interrelationships between these constraints in individual farming systems (i.e. systems that determine farmers’ overall economic success and livelihood) than on agricultural systems (i.e. cropping systems and the combination of agricultural uses of natural resources). The type, amount and complexity of required support for transforming existing farming systems into sustainable enterprises under changed conditions in water supply depends on their resource endowment and socio‐economic situation. The formulation of effective policies for specific farming systems will require further investigations .
2.4.2 Water quantities for agriculture
million cube meter / year
Agriculture has, after nature, the lowest priority in the allocation of water by Jordan's water policies. Potentially available water for agriculture consists out of the water that remains after coverage of all water needs of the municipal, Figure 9: Remaining freshwater for agriculture industrial, touristic and, 700 after 2020, nuclear energy 584 sectors. Additional water for 544 600 agriculture comes from the treatment of wastewater, 437 465 where only a very limited 500 392 competition exists from certain industries and 312 400 303 probably parts of water 340 323 demands for cooling 300 purposes in the intended nuclear power plants. Current discussions on the magnitude of the designated cap for water use in agriculture (4) act on assumptions between 700 and 1,000 MCM/year, but see an implementation of limitations exclusively in the highlands. Agriculture in the Jordan Valley will rely to a
200
100
0 2015 MWI
2020
Aspiration Scenarios avg.
2025 Trend Scenarios avg.
NB: scenario figures represent average situation, ‡ indicates upper and lower bound, MWI: working assumptions 2011
22
growing extend on the provision with treated wastewater, which increasingly replaces freshwater from the tributaries to the Jordan River. This freshwater will be diverted to an increasing degree to the urban areas in the highland for municipal water supply. The current calculations by the MWI assume that remaining amounts of freshwater, i.e. annually available freshwater resources5 minus demands from all other sectors, will amount to between 312 and 340 MCM/year in the period from 2015 to 2025. The estimations from the scenario analyses indicate that this amount may vary between far less than 303 MCM in 2015 up to more than 600 MCM in 2025, depending on (i) the factual developments in demographic and economic growth and (ii) the effects from loss reductions and water savings.
wastewater depends predominantly on developments in municipal water use and treatment capacities. Current estimations of the MWI act on the assumptions of Jordan's Water Strategy (4) and predict an increase from 102 MCM in 2009 to 247 MCM in 2025. Scenario estimations on the basis of a reclamation rate of 50% from water for municipal use indicate, that the scheduled
Figure 10: Development of treated wastewater from municipal water use 700 600 million cube meter / year
The development of available treated
500 400 300 200
165
247 234
223 214
224
169
146
149
100 0 2015 MWI
2020
Aspiration Scenarios avg.
2025 Trend Scenarios avg.
wastewater amounts may NB: scenario figures represent average situation under the assumption of only be reached if (i) a 50% reclamation rate, ‡ indicates upper and lower bound, MWI: municipal water use working assumptions 2011 increases stronger than according to the trends in the past and/or (ii) factual developments in demographic and economic growth surpass the predicted rates and/or (iii) reductions of physical NRW and water savings fall behind the expectations. The resulting total water availability for agriculture from remaining amounts of freshwater and treated wastewater will extend to 477 MCM in 2015 and increase to 570 MCM in 2025 according to the current planning figures of the MWI6. The scenario calculations indicate that the targeted 700 MCM/year for agriculture can only be achieved earliest in 2020, but
5 6
For a description of existing and expected water resources see chapter 3 cf. chapter 3, Figure 12 23
even then only under the assumption of (i) an increase in municipal water use according to the trends, i.e. a considerably lower water use per capita than 100 lcd and (ii) factual developments in demographic and economic growth that surpass the predicted rates. Figure 11: Availability of water for agriculture 1000 900 million cube meter / year
800
606 527
700
563
400
477 165
223
303
169
570
214 247 584
544
465 312
753
234
149 224
146
300 200
690
614
600 500
671
340
437
392
323
100 0 MWI
Aspiration Trend 2015 Freshwater
MWI
Aspiration Trend 2020
Treated Wastewater
MWI
Aspiration Trend 2025
Water Cap 700 MCM
NB: scenario figures represent average situation under the assumption of a 50% wastewater reclamation rate of water for municipal uses, ‡ indicates upper and lower bound under different assumptions on developments in drivers, NRW reductions and water savings, MWI: working assumptions 2011
These calculations of water availability for agriculture represent the results from the nationwide balance between water supply and water use, but do not consider the location of water amounts. The majority of wastewater is produced by Jordan’s urban areas and flows downhill, i.e. to the Jordan Valley. Especially governorates in the highlands like Mafraq and Ma’an will not benefit from the overall increase in treated wastewater, even under the assumption of an equal efficiency of local wastewater treatment. Governorates in the Jordan Valley with similar situations, such as e.g. Balqa, receive already nowadays substantial amounts of treated wastewater via the water infrastructure around the central treatment plant at As Samra. Improvements in the efficiency of water recycling provide only a marginal potential for alleviating the gap between agricultural water demand and water availability in the highlands under the given conveyance infrastructure. The argument against investments in an infrastructure for the transfer of treated wastewater from other governorates is that only the governorate of Amman will produce more treated wastewater than probably required by its local agriculture. This water is already used nowadays for agriculture in the Jordan
24
Valley, which has the advantages of an already existing conveyance system and lower conveyance costs due to the difference in altitude.
2.5 Water demand by Nature The assessment of water requirements by nature focuses on the major natural reserves and unique ecosystems in Jordan, whereby the Dead Sea takes a special position due to its cross‐ border location. The deficit between the historical inflow and the current inflow to the Dead Sea amounts to about 1.20 billion MCM/year, which led to a decline of its sea level by about 1 m per year over the last decades. Jordan's part in this deficit consists mainly out of the diversion of about 70 MCM/year from the Yarmouk River to King Abdulla Canal for domestic supply to west Amman and for agricultural use in the Jordan Valley. One proposed solutions to restore the Dead Sea level is the Red Sea Dead Sea Canal project, which is expected to bring about 850 million cubic meter of brine to the sea. Other major natural areas endangered by water stress comprise the Al Azraq Oasis, Wadi Mujib and Wadi Wala. Estimates of the total water demand for these areas amount to 55 MCM /year, but significant return flows of this water can be and are used by other sectors, such as in the case of Wadi Mujib and Wadi Wala. This water demand is assumed to be the minimum amount required to save these ecosystems and regarded as a long‐term constant. Al Azraq oasis is a natural reserve in the eastern desert of Jordan. The oasis is one of the most unique ecosystems in the region and an important home for migratory birds. The WAJ put a stop to well digging and planned to pump up to 1.5 MCM /year from artesian wells to the wetland reserve in order to preserve the remainders of the oasis. Water amounts pumped in 2008 where up to slightly more than 700 thousand m³. A full restoration of the oasis would require limiting of the abstraction to the safe yield of about 25 MCM/year. Wadi Mujib is a gorge which enters the Dead Sea at 410 meters below sea level and a regionally important sanctuary for biodiversity of flora and fauna. The current base flow is up to 38 MCM/year and considered as adequate supply of the natural demand. Wadi Wala, which is known in its lower reaches as Wadi Heidan, runs from its headwaters south of Amman to its confluence with Wadi Mujib about 3 km from the Dead Sea. Wadi Wala has a fairly stable base flow which covers its estimated water demand from nature of about 6.6 MCM/year.
25
Chapter 3: Water resources The MWI acts on the assumption of an available water supply of 892 MCM in 2010. Increases in the annual supply until 2020 rely predominantly on the extended exploitation of fossil groundwater and the development of wastewater treatment capacities. The major expected source for additional water from 2020 onwards is desalinated water from the alternative mega‐projects "Red Sea Dead Sea Water Conveyance (RSDSWC)" or "Jordan Red Sea Project" (JRSP). Their contribution is supposed to increase water supply up to 1429 MCM/year around 2025 (cf. fig. 12). Sustainable water supply will be up to 816 MCM in 2010. Water requirements above the sustainable water supply are met by over abstracting renewable groundwater aquifers. This over abstraction was estimated with about 55% of the safe yield according to MWI's 2009 water budget. The Ministry assumes an over‐abstraction of about 76 MCM for 2010 and plans to phase out over‐abstraction until 2025.
Figure 12: Planned Water Supply 2010 – 2025 1600 1429
million cube meter/year
1400
1260
1200 1006 1000
892
800 600 400 200 0
2010
2015
2020
2025
0
0
210
370
Treated Wastewater
117
165
223
247
Peace Treaty
50
50
50
50
Desalinization
10
25
25
25
Surface Water
236
244
255
266
Fossil Groundwater
74
142
142
142
Red Sea Desalinization
Renewable Groundwater Groundwater overabstraction Total
329
329
329
329
76.13
51.13
26.13
0
892
1006
1260
1429
Source: MWI, 2011
26
Conventional fresh water resources in Jordan consist in their vast majority out of groundwater and surface water, whereby groundwater is the main source for municipal water supply, industry and irrigation in the highlands. The estimated safe yield of groundwater amounts to 329 MCM/year from the twelve basins with renewable groundwater. This includes the estimated 54 MCM/year of return flows from already pumped water back to the aquifers. Basins with non‐renewable groundwater contribute currently about 74 MCM per year, whereby estimates on potential safe yields from these sources vary from 107 up to 143 MCM/year. Developed surface water resources from the fifteen surface water basins were up to 289 MCM in 2009 and shall reach 266 MCM/year until 2025 according to the current planning of the MWI. This falls short of the scheduled 365 MCM/year in 2022 as stated in Jordan's Water Strategy (2009), but the inflows of surface water vary in any case significantly from year to year. The estimated long term average sustainable extraction rate amounts to about 692 MCM/year, but this includes both, base flows and flood flows. Israel is obliged to deliver an additional 50 MCM/year according to the peace treaty from 1994.
3.1 Water resource development Overall expectations to additional contributions from the further exploitation of conventional water resources until 2025 are up to about 121 MCM/year. This includes an increase in water conveyance from the Disi aquifer from currently about 61 to 122 MCM/year, 25 MCM/year from new dams and another 30 MCM/year from an improved performance of the joint Jordanian‐Syrian Al‐Wehda dam. Expected contributions from urban rainwater harvesting amount to 5 MCM/year in 2025, whereby its full potential was estimated to be about 100 MCM/year (CEC, 2010). Most water from non‐conventional water resources will come from the treatment of wastewater at least until 2020. Treated wastewater added 102 MCM to Jordan's water balance in 2009 and estimations for 2010 are up to 117 MCM. Jordan's Water Strategy (4) and the planning of the MWI act on the assumption that available water from wastewater treatment will more than double until 2025 and reach 247 MCM in that year. Water from local desalination adds currently about 10 MCM/year and is expected to reach 25 MCM/year from 2015 onwards. Planning of large‐scale desalinization is much more ambitious with an expected contribution of about 210 MCM/year in 2020 and 370 MCM/year in 2025 from desalinization of Red Sea waters. However, the mentioned alternative mega‐projects RSDSWC or JRSP are in their planning phase and at least some financial aspects for their realization are still pending. Increases in the efficiency of water conveyance and water use do not add to the available water resources, but allow for a more targeted water allocation. Expected gains from improved water use efficiency amount to 74.5 MCM/year and from improved water supply efficiency to between 62 and 83 MCM/year 2025.
27
This listing of the estimated water resources in the future relies on assumptions about "most likely" developments, but is already today subject to high annual and inter‐annual variations. Reasons are the dependency of most natural water resources and their safe yields on the magnitude and distribution of precipitations. Relatively safe estimations are only possible for water from fossil, non‐renewable aquifers and seawater desalination, i.e. water from the aforementioned mega‐projects. The development of new water resources will require additional infrastructure and technologies that exceed the costs of investments, operation and maintenance of the existing water exploitation. The current full costs for water supply range from about 0.13 JD/m³ for treated wastewater from existing treatment plants and sewer systems, 0.15 JD/m³ for groundwater extraction in highland agriculture and 0.29 JD/m³ for surface water for irrigation in the Jordan Valley up to about 0.51 JD/m³ for the supply of municipal water. The estimate of the current average costs per m³ of water supply is up to about 0.35 JD. Additional water for the future from increases in wastewater treatment may have to calculate with considerably higher costs in particular in areas, which require the complete new construction of infrastructure for wastewater collection and conveyance of effluents from treatment plants. Cost estimates for the conveyance of non‐renewable groundwater from the Disi aquifer to Amman are up to slightly more than 0.80 JD/m³ and water from large‐scale desalinization of Red Sea water may even be way above 1.50 JD/m³. This indicates that water for the future will come in each case at higher costs. Current estimates act on the assumption of water costs, which may more than double in the future. However, the economic costs for the development of new water resources must be clearly distinguished from reflections on funding and impacts on budgets. Questions on the distribution of costs will have to consider, amongst others, elements like charges for wastewater disposal by clients as well as potential grants from donors. Hazards to water quality in Jordan comprise unsafe wastewater management, uncontrolled disposal of industrial waste, leaching from unsanitary solid waste landfills, seepage from agrochemicals and over‐abstraction from water resources. Existing action plans for the preservation and improvement of water quality focus on (1) groundwater abstraction, (2) the extension of access of households to sewer systems, (3) improvements in wastewater treatment technologies and (4) the enforcement of wastewater treatment plants for all industries (NWS, 2009). Concerns about potential damages from agrochemicals to water quality did not make it on the agenda yet. However, they may be expectable in the future if efforts towards increasing water use efficiency in agriculture will lead to a more extensive use of fertilizers and pesticides in the watersheds of the highlands.
28
3.2 Strategies, Policies and Legislations The Jordanian government faced the growing water question on a national scale by institutionalizing an adequate water administration. Milestones were the mandate of the Water Authority of Jordan in 1988 and the creation of the Ministry of Water and Irrigation in 1992. First regulations followed for wastewater (regulation no. 54/1994) and drinking water (regulation no. 67/1994) in 1994. The Jordan Valley Development Law no. 19 from 1988 defined rules for the development of water resources in the Valley for water use in all sectors. Law no. 30 from 2001 amended this law under the same title. Currently, there are around 19 ruling strategies, policy and legislation documents on the water sector. The National Water Strategy (2009) and the National Water Master Plan (2004) constitute the basis for the current planning, whereby the latter is subject to constant amendments and adaptations by a standing working group at the MWI. The list of strategies, policy and legislation documents is attached in appendix 6.
3.3 Climate Change Estimations about effects from Climate Change indicate a slight increase of precipitations until 2030, but a deterioration of climatic conditions after 2030. According to the report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007), projected annual average ranges of precipitation may decrease in Jordan and its surrounding countries by 10% to 20 % in the long run. Climate Change Projections from regional climate models on the lower Jordan River area, which covers all of Jordan north from the Dead Sea, indicate amongst others:
a slight increase of total precipitations until 2035, but a decrease by at least 15% between 2031 and 2060, a slight increase in consecutive dry day length, a reduction in the number of heavy precipitation days, but an increase in the number of very heavy precipitation days and a temperature increase of between 1.5 and 2.5° C
source: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 2010
Further effects are the increase in the occurrence of extreme weather events and an intra‐ annual shift of dry seasons. The impact of such changes on the replenishment of dams and aquifers as well as their dynamics over the coming years is still subject of ongoing research. However, it highlights the probability of potential downward corrections of safe yields from ground‐ and surface water in the future and emphasizes the role of the intended mega‐projects in the mitigation of uncertainties.
29
Impacts from Climate Change that go beyond changes in safe yields from surface and groundwater resources will in particular affect rainfed agriculture and nature due to the expected intra‐annual shift of precipitations. Regions of major concerns are the drier rainfed agricultural areas in the governorates of Mafraq, Al‐Zarqa, Ma'an, Aqaba and parts of Madaba. Changing groundwater availability for irrigation due to Climate Change will affect in particular agriculture in the Wadi Arabah region with its mix of rainfed and irrigated agriculture. This highlights the potential role of surplus irrigation as part of the solution to water constraints in agriculture (cf. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, IWMI, 2007).
30
3.4 Comparison of supply and demand The comparison between the expectations of the MWI on the development of total water supply and demand from all sectors except agriculture yields a surplus of currently 495 MCM/year, which would increase to 570 MCM/year in 2025. This surplus includes a decreasing over‐abstraction of groundwater from currently about 76 MCM/year to zero in 2025 and the expected contributions from the Dead Sea mega‐projects to the water supply. Water use by agriculture, which exceeds this surplus, would have to rely on an extension of the already considered over‐abstraction of groundwater. A comparison of the expected water demand by the MWI with the range of results from calculations of the WDM scenarios shows that the estimations by the Ministry tend to approach the upper bound of scenario‐based estimations until 2025 (cf. fig. 13). Reasons are (i) the current estimation approach of the MWI, which is based on the "Aspiration" assumptions, i.e. a nationwide average supply of 112 lcd starting in the immediate future and (ii) the very cautious consideration of potential savings in municipal water use in the calculations of the MWI. Figure 13: Comparison of expected water supply and water demand 1600 1400
510
1200 million cube meter
range of potential water demand development without Agriculture Business as usual (max)
1000 upper bound from scenarios
800
365
401
600 400 200 0 2010
lower bound from scenarios
212 519
current demand estimate by MWI
315 2015
2020
2025
Source: MWI planning assumptions 2011, scenario calculations by QUASIR
31
Chapter 4: Economic considerations Preliminary estimations by the MWI on required investments for the implementation of WDM measures towards the achievements of the goals of Jordan's Water Strategy 2008 – 2022 are up to more than 1.25 billion JD (6). Estimates on the related annual costs for operation and maintenance (O&M) vary between 10 and 33 million JD/year. Expected effects from these investments are: annual water savings in municipal water use of in average 55 MCM/year, increasing efficiencies of water use in irrigation and expansions and improvements of irrigation with treated wastewater, which will correspond to the production capacity of an additional amount of water of about 29 MCM/year, Table 1: Current cost estimates for WDM measures in Jordan Program
Investment Costs1
Annual O&M Costs²
Expected annual water gains²
million JD Municipal/Domestic Water Sector: 1) Implementation of "Green 124.00 Code"
million JD Avg. Start f.o.5
Avg.
MCM Start
f.o.5
4.43
2.00
5.00
9.75
5.00
14.50
2) Water Awareness Program 3) Institutions and policies 4) Reduction of physical Losses³ 5) Reduction of administrative losses Sub‐Total 1: Agricultural Water Sector:4 6) Expansion/Improvement of treated wastewater use in irrigation 7) Improvement of Farm Irrigation Efficiency Sub‐Total 2: Total
0.22 1.25 9.83
0.16 0.85 3.00
0.23 1.30 15.5
8.96 11.87 26.70
1.50 4.00 5.00
15.30 19.75 38.00
4.69 34.47 517.55
Considered in the "Action Plan for Implementing the Water Sector Strategy", adds to utilities' budgets, but not to physical water gains
680.71
15.73
6.01
22.03
57.28
15.50
87,55
130.56
1.13
0.63
1.22
24.95
8.00
36.00
12.00
0.14
0.10
0.15
5.01
1.50
5.50
142.56 823.27
1.27 17.00
0.73 6.74
1.37 23.4
29.96 87.24
9.50 25.00
41.50 129.05
1
Source: MWI, "Action Plan for Implementing the Water Sector Strategy" (6) ² estimates by ATEEC based on information from MWI, program period 20 years ³ These costs in the "Action Plan" may not focus on the reduction of physical losses only, but may also include restructuring, renewal, extension and improved management of the network. 4 Improved water use efficiency in agriculture adds productive capacity, but does not necessarily reduce water use and water demand 5 f.o = full operation
the billing of administrative losses of 76 MCM/year in average, which does not add directly to the water balance, but would help to increase the financial leeway of the
32
utilities. Some savings may be expected if hitherto "free" water would become subject to water tariffs, but estimations on this effect are not available. An evaluation at the current stage relies on rough approximations due to the preliminary nature of estimations of costs and benefits, but gives a first indication on potential economic efficiencies of the programs7.
4.1 WDM in the municipal sector In particular programs for WDM in the municipal sector are interlinked and may unfold their potential only under concerted implementation. Effects from the implementation of the "green code", which comprises water saving devices and technologies in resident households and new constructions, are closely linked to adjusted water awareness programs and the support by institutions and policies. The joint evaluation of these three programs shows that the discounted costs for water savings from these WDM measures would decrease ‐ at a rate of interest of 6% ‐ to 0.91 JD/m³ after 10 years and to 0.35 JD/m³ after 20 years. Figure 14: Costs of water gains from WDM programs "Green Code", "Awareness" and "Institutions & policies" For comparison, the current average water costs for municipal water amount to 0.51 JD/m³, which corresponds to discounted costs of 0.30 JD/m³ in 10 years and 1.00 0.17 JD/m³ in 20 years. 0.90
However, these figures neglect two effects:
0.80
Water saved through WDM did already cause costs of currently 0.51 JD/m³, since this water was already provided to the municipal water supply system, but got either lost (physical NRW) or was used for avoidable purposes ("Green Code"). The consideration of the costs of saved water as benefits of WDM
0.60
JD / m³
0.70
0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 year discounted costs/m³ of WDM programm discounted cost‐benefits/m3 from WDM program discounted current water costs
7
Results of the cited cost benefit analyses are compiled in appendix 5 33
measures decrease the discounted costs of water gains through the WDM program to 0.55 JD/m³ after 10 years and even 0.10 JD/m³ after 20 years. The break‐even point with the current costs of water supply would be reached around the fifteenth year of the program, i.e. water gains from WDM would be less costly afterwards. Costs for water supply will increase in the future in particular with regard to the required investments for the Disi conveyance and the large‐scale desalinization of Red Sea Waters. A doubling of the water costs for municipal water supply from currently 0.51 JD/m³ to 1.02 JD/m³ would considerably improve the economic competitiveness and lead to a break‐even point already in the seventh year, if the costs of saved water are considered as benefits of this WDM program. The same calculations for the reduction of physical water losses indicate that the rehabilitation of municipal water systems would lead to comparatively high costs under the current cost estimates. The discounted costs for water savings through reductions of physical NRW would decrease ‐ at a rate of interest of 6% ‐ to 2.65 JD/m³ after 10 years and to 1.09 JD/m³ after 20 years. The consideration of benefits from saved water costs decreases the costs of water gains through this WDM measure to 2.30 JD/m³ after 10 years and to 0,83 JD/m³ after 20 years.
The deterioration of municipal water networks is not a static, but a progressive progress. The expectable increase in physical water losses and the respective saving of larger water amounts would increase the economic efficiency of
Figure 15: Costs of water gains from water network rehabilitation (reduction of physical NRW) 3.00 2.50 2.00 JD / m³
This leaves a substantial gap to the alternative costs of additional water and earmarks water network rehabilitation as a last resort in cases, where the development of other water resources is restricted. Three factors may lead to improvements of the economic competitiveness:
1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 year discounted costs/m³ of WDM programm discounted cost‐benefits/m3 from WDM program discounted current water costs
34
rehabilitation measures, provided that the costs for the rehabilitation do not change. The investment and O&M costs for network rehabilitation in the current calculations are preliminary estimations and might be subject to considerable adjustments, if specific elements of the intended network rehabilitation become subject to closer examinations about possible cost minimization. The current planning of investments in reductions of physical NRW represents the maximum solution of. This implies that also the last and most expensive marginal volumes of water would be saved. An alternative approach would be a stepwise investment planning, which starts with the least costly measures for NRW reductions and continues to add measures until a balance between costs for this WDM measure and costs of alternative water reclamation is reached. This would most probably imply the abandonment of a part of potential savings in terms of water volume, but simultaneously improve the economic competitiveness of the investments in reducing physical NRW. A doubling of the water costs for municipal water supply from currently 0.51 JD/m³ to 1.02 JD/m³ would reduce the difference between those costs and costs for water from the WDM program on loss reduction. The break‐even point would still not be reached after 20 years, but the difference between both alternatives for water reclamation would shrink from 0.49 JD/m³ to 0.23 JD/m³.
35
4.2 WDM in the agricultural sector The expansion and improvement of treated wastewater use in irrigation as well as improvements of irrigation efficiencies in Jordanian farming would most likely not lead to water savings, but to a better economic exploitation of available water resources. Benefits from the intended investments in these programs arise from the increase in farmer's income and in the contribution of agriculture to the GDP. The assessment of other expectable effects, e.g. impacts on rural communities and labor markets, will require specific information on the farming and rural systems in the areas of the intended WDM measures (cf. chapters 2.4 and 4.3). The valuation of the increased production capacity of water from the WDM interventions with the current average operation surplus of 0.563 JD/m³ yields a negative net present value of about ‐ 50.6 million JD after 10 years, which changes to a positive value of about 28.4 million JD after a program period of 20 years. The break‐even point occurs between the sixteenth and seventeenth year of the program. Figure 16: Cost and benefits of intended WDM measures in irrigation (rate of interest: 6%) 300
million JD
250 200 150 100 50 ‐ 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 year
accumulated discounted costs accumulated. discounted benefits at OS = 0.563 JD/m³ accumulated discounted benefits at OS = 0.789 JD/m³
However, improved irrigation technologies and additional irrigation capacities from treated wastewater may be used in the first place for vegetable production, which yields an average operation surplus of 0.789 JD/m³. This would still lead to a negative net present value of about 14.4 million JD in the tenth year of the program, but would increase this value to about 98.4 million JD in the twentieth year and advance the break‐even point to the period between the eleventh and twelfth year.
36
4.3 Consideration of effects from inter‐sectoral water transfers The economics of investments in WDM measures for irrigation takes a different angle, if gains in the production capacity of water and increased use of treated wastewater imply the transfer of corresponding freshwater quantities to the sector of municipal water use. Transfer of freshwater from agriculture to municipal water use and its replacement with an equivalent production capacity of water would leave agriculture in the beginning in the same situation than before the WDM program. However, additional freshwater for municipal purposes generates again additional amounts of wastewater, which can be treated and re‐ channeled to agriculture. The resulting effects are additional benefits on the side of municipal water users as well as on the side of farmers. The intended WDM investments for irrigation would already reach their break‐even point after the fifth year under the assumption of: Figure 17: Costs and benefits of water transfer from agriculture to municipal water use 700 600
million JD
500 400 300 200 100 0 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 year
accumulated discounted costs accumulated discounted benefits (OS agric. = 0.563 JD/m³) accumumulated discounted benefits (OS agric. = 0.789 JD/m³)
a water value of 0.563 JD/m³ in irrigation a water value of 1.49 JD/m³ in municipal use a return flow of 50% of water for municipal use as treated wastewater and an interest rate of 6%.
37
The net present value of the program would be up to about 142.8 million JD after 10 years and reach about 403.1 million JD after a program period of 20 years. Discounted benefits for farmers would amount to about 45 million JD after 10 years and 87.3 million JD after 20 years. Discounted benefits for municipal water users would add up to 238.4 million JD after 10 years and about 462.1 million JD after 20 years. The same calculation with a water value of 0.789 JD/m³ in irrigation, i.e. the average operation surplus of vegetables, does not change the break‐even point but leads to a higher net present value of 160.9 million JD after 10 years and about 462.1 million JD after 20 years. The beneficiaries of this increase would be farmers, who would achieve discounted benefits of 63.1 million JD after 10 years and of 122.3 million JD after 20 years. However, the stated costs for the concerned WDM measures do not consider potentially required additional investments in the upgrade of conveyance systems for the transfer of freshwater to urban areas and the additional costs for treatment and conveyance of the return flows of wastewater. The incorporation of such additional costs may lead to certain adjustments in the competitiveness of the scenario on intersectoral water transfer.
38
4.4 Conditions for economic assessments The preceding analyses of costs and benefits from intended WDM measures already addressed the shortcomings in information, which will be required for an extension towards cost‐effectiveness analyses and comprehensive economic assessments. An exemplary comparison of program evaluations in the municipal and agricultural sector showed, that Jordan's institutionalized data collection systems are suitable for the assessment of programs that focus on benefits in water management, i.e. direct impacts on water losses and savings. But assessments of impacts from water management programs on the level of households and farms face constraints in particular with regard to effects on livelihoods and economic effects through changes in water users' decision making and behavior. Comprehensive economic assessments would require additional information at least on the status of and impacts on family incomes, cash availability, resource endowment and related uncertainties. Evaluations of such parameters rely currently on non‐recurring data collections of evaluation missions, which have the disadvantage of being rarely comparable amongst each other and prohibit a continuous, dynamic observation of program effects (see Box 4). Affirmative relief could come from adjustments in the comprehensive quinquennial surveys of the different ministries and the Department of Statistics (DOS). Improvements should focus on the data storage structure and accessibility rather than the volume and type of the already collected data. The goal of restructuring would be to enable analyses of decision units, i.e. households or farming systems, by indexing all information that belongs to an individual unit. Accessibility would require a service unit for authorized queries. However, potential restrictions due to Jordan's approach to data privacy may require further analysis.
39
Box 4: Examples of program assessments Municipal water sector: The corporatization of water and sanitation services allows for a direct qualitative and quantitative evaluation of its major benefits due to continuous data collection on O&M costs, security of continuous water supply and development of NRW. The results from the assessment of 5 projects under the corporatization program allowed for the calculation of Net Present Values and Internal Rates of Return, which provide a basis for objective comparisons between their individual efficiencies. Example 1: Corporatization: Cost effectiveness analysis results Corporatization
Total water Total saving saving (MCM) (M JD)
At 100% of saving
At 50% of saving
NPV
IRR
NPV
IRR
Amman Management Contract
29.07
25.87
5.49
27.3%
‐1.15
4.8%
NGWA Managing Consulting
1.36
1.21
‐3.57
NA
‐4.02
NA
Aqaba Water Company
4.31
3.83
0.86
33%
‐0.33
‐2.1%
Madaba PSP
‐0.39
‐0.35
‐1.19
NA
‐1.07
NA
Miyahuna Company
9.53
8.48
4.41
186.4%
1.22
79.8%
Source: Diagnostic Report of the Jordan Water Demand Management Study, ATEEC/QUASIR 2011 NA: Not applicable
Agricultural water sector: The analysis of Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) via the creation of Water Users Associations (WUA) in the Jordan Valley yielded a number of positive indications on the impacts of the program, which led to the decision to expand this approach to most areas of the Valley. However, quantitative data on benefits exist only on reductions in O&M cost, while the majority of benefits may come from higher efficiencies in the use of land and water by farmers. Required data for the quantification of these effects may be hidden in the files of the last agricultural survey, but are difficult to access. Current evaluations rely on case studies only. An assessment of the justifiable funding for the overall program as well as comparisons with alternative lines of action is thus not possible yet. Example 2: PIM: Model‐based impact estimations, case study from the southern Jordan Valley Indicators Price elasticity Total cultivated area Crop intensity Total Revenue
Unit % Ha % US$ Source: Al‐Habbab & Al‐Absi (2003)
Before PIM 1.3 268.6 82 844,532
After PIM 1.7 388.3 118 1,138,979
40
Conclusion The value of water demand in Jordan still exceeds the costs of water provision, but does so only by overpumping of groundwater resources. An adjustment between supply and demands by the exploitation of new water resources will only be possible in the long term run and lead to an articulate increase in water costs. Potential reductions in water demand through WDM measures will not be sufficient to bridge the full gap in the meantime, but would help to alleviate the pressure on Jordan's natural water resources. Future challenges in the demand side of Jordan's already stressed water balance will originate in particular from the development in domestic and municipal water use. Growth in industrial water demand may actually be stronger in proportions, even if it stays far behind in the absolute amount of water. A major lesson from the scenario analyses of water demand is that all WDM measures need some years after their initiation until they unfold their full effects. This emphasizes the necessity to translate already decided measures as quick as possible into practice and to speed up the specification of conclusive WDM programs for industries and – to a certain extent ‐ tourism. WDM in agriculture has certainly the potential to increase economic water use efficiencies, but does not necessarily lead to a decrease in agricultural water demand. Water is an important, but just one among many constraints for Jordanian farming systems. The impacts of a cap on water for agriculture will depend to a large extent on the frame conditions and their adjustments for the individual types of farming systems. At this point Jordan will have to decide, what kind of agricultural and rural structures are worthy of preservation and which structural adjustments may be required for the sustainable development of the agricultural sector.
41
References (1) J.A. Allan (2002) The Middle East Water Question. I.B. Tauris Publishers, London, New York. (2) MWI (2010): Aggregated file on water demand and supply 2008‐2025 (3) Howard G., Bartam J. (2003) Domestic Water Quantity, Service Level and Health. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland (4) MWI (2009): Water for Life. Jordan's Water Strategy 2008‐2022. Rev. 10.270309 (5) Ministry of Agriculture / DOS (2007): Agricultural survey (6) MWI (2009) Action Plan for Implementing the Water Sector Strategy. Available at: www.mwi.gov.jo/sites/en‐us/Downloads/ActionPlan.pdf (last visited: Dec. 12, 2011)
Additional readings: 1. IDARA (Instituting Water Demand Management In Jordan). Second Year Progress Report, October 2008‐September 2009 2. MWI/IDARA application of the Alliance Water Use Efficiency (AWE). Water Demand Growth Forecast NGWA, Miyahuna, AWC. MWI, 2011. 3. O’Neill & Siegelbaum and The RICE Group. Hotel Water Conservation ‐ A Seattle Demonstration. Seattle Public Utilities Resource Conservation Section, 2002. 4. Salman, A., Al‐Karablieh, E., and Haddadin, M., Limits of Pricing Policy in Curtailing Household Water Consumption Under Scarcity Conditions, Water Policy, 2008, Vol. 10, P 295‐304.
42
Appendix 1: Water Demand Table A1.1: Municipal water supply for the different governorates in Jordan for the years 2000 till 2008 in MCM Governorate 2000 2001 2002 Amman 91.3 93.6 94.1 Zarqa 31.8 32.7 34.4 Mafraq 30.1 18.9 16.9 Jarash 9.2 30.9 4.1 Ajloun 2.4 3.9 3.5 Balqa 4.2 3.1 18.3 Irbid 18.5 15.2 31.4 Tafila 16.3 5.9 3.0 Karak 3.2 9.4 11.2 Ma'an 5.6 2.6 8.0 Aqaba 15.2 7.7 14.7 Madaba 7.5 15.0 6.1 Total 235.4 239.0 245.6 Source: MWI files and annual reports
2003 106.3 37.0 17.3 3.8 3.4 18.1 31.6 3.1 10.2 7.1 15.0 5.9 258.7
2004 118.5 37.7 16.9 4.4 3.1 20.2 32.8 3.1 11.0 7.1 15.0 6.1 275.8
2005 119.9 38.4 17.5 4.1 3.6 21.3 34.4 3.5 11.0 7.1 15.0 6.2 282.0
2006 122.0 40.3 17.6 4.1 3.6 21.2 34.2 3.7 11.5 7.5 14.3 6.4 286.3
2007 2008 2009 124.8 128.7 129.0 44.6 44.8 46.7 18.2 18.6 20.3 4.2 4.6 4.6 3.8 3.8 3.9 21.7 21.4 23.1 36.0 39.2 37.0 4.0 4.6 4.9 12.9 13.7 14.6 8.5 9.3 9.1 15.4 14.3 12.4 6.9 7.4 7.8 300.9 310.4 313.4
Table A1.2: Share of Non‐Residential Water in Billed Municipal Water per Governorate Year Governorate Amman Balqa Zarqa Madaba Irbid Mafraq Jarash Ajloun Karak Tafila Maan Aqaba Jordan
2001
2002
12.5% 13.0% 7.5% 10.5% 8.8% 17.3% 7.9% 6.6% 9.8% 19.2% 40.0% 70.4% 16.6%
12.5% 15.4% 6.3% 7.6% 7.5% 13.4% 7.7% 10.9% 10.0% 12.1% 32.4% 69.6% 16.1%
2003 11.5% 14.5% 11.7% 9.5% 7.5% 16.3% 7.8% 8.7% 12.0% 14.7% 29.5% 68.9% 16.1%
2004 11.9% 15.6% 5.7% 7.7% 7.1% 13.6% 7.7% 11.1% 10.5% 12.4% 21.7% 68.9% 14.8%
2005 12.2% 15.0% 11.7% 7.3% 8.4% 14.4% 7.0% 9.4% 10.5% 13.1% 37.4% 68.3% 16.4%
2006
2007
2008
2009
18.0% 14.6% 14.3% 8.5% 8.8% 14.8% 6.8% 8.8% 11.0% 14.4% 32.8% 69.0% 19.4%
18.0% 13.9% 11.4% 9.8% 10.1% 15.8% 7.2% 10.0% 11.2% 15.0% 30.2% 69.0% 19.1%
18.0% 13.1% 8.4% 11.1% 11.3% 16.9% 7.5% 11.1% 11.4% 15.7% 27.6% 69.0% 18.8%
18.0% 13.1% 8.4% 11.1% 11.3% 16.9% 7.5% 11.1% 11.4% 15.7% 27.6% 69.0% 18.8%
Source: WAJ, 2010
43
Table A1.3: Projected irrigated areas in the Jordan Valley and in the highlands (in ha, NWMP, 2004) Region Uplands JRV Total
1998 59,576 25,391 84,967
2005 59,576 39,691 99,267
2010 59,576 42,291 101,867
2015 59,576 42,291 101,867
2020 59,576 42,291 101,867
2025 59,576 42,291 101,867
Source: NWMP (2004)
Figure A1.1: Irrigation water use by sources in the Jordan Valley
Source: NWMP (2004)
Figure A1.2: Irrigation water use by sources in the Highlands
Source: NWMP (2004)
44
Table A1.4: Summary of irrigation water use and sources in MCM for 2003‐2009 Water Resource 2003 2004 Surface water 101.163 125.308 Groundwater 278.699 251.452 Treated WW 75.396 86.422 Total 455.258 463.182 Source: MWI Water budget, 2009
2005 187.75 254.649 83.545 525.944
2006 185.084 245.503 80.3 510.887
2008 160.50 236.067 101 497.567
2007 176.366 244.81 90.97 512.146
2009 159.877 245.755 102.36 507.992
Table A1.5: Development of irrigation water demand in agriculture in million cube meters (MCM) Year
1994
1995
Up‐Land
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Field Crops
130
167
130
172
147
26
78
77
190
124
108
164
159
109
106
Vegetables
58
104
46
50
69
73
57
51
68
68
72
86
82
54
75
Fruit Trees
253
257
260
311
315
319
322
324
325
326
326
326
326
300
301
Total
440
528
435
533
531
418
457
452
584
518
506
576
567
463
481
Jordan Valley
Field Crops
17
18
14
25
19
12
18
13
13
11
11
18
14
13
16
Vegetables
59
54
55
58
51
53
61
56
54
50
59
56
63
69
73
Fruit Trees
82
91
98
98
103
105
112
112
118
91
93
93
96
103
105
158
163
167
181
173
170
190
181
185
152
163
167
174
185
195
598
691
602
714
704
588
648
633
769
670
669
743
741
648
676
Total Grand Total Source: JVA, WAJ
Table A1.6: Irrigation water use and projected irrigation water demand per governorate until 2025 in MCM Governorate Ajloun Amman Aqaba Aqaba_Valley Balqa Balqa_Valley Irbid Irbid_Valley Jarash Karak Karak_Valley Madaba Mafraq Ma’an Tafilah Zarqa Total
1998 14.0 74.6 24.4 4.7 20.3 112.4 20.7 96.0 33.2 38.2 27.9 5.7 163.8 106.7 24.9 133.0 900.5
2005 13.3 74.5 24.4 4.1 20.1 273.9 20.5 130.3 32.9 37.8 27.9 5.7 163.8 106.7 24.4 133.3 1093.4
2010 12.2 73.8 23.8 7.3 19.4 269.7 19.6 121.9 30.7 35.4 33.6 5.6 162.3 106.7 23.4 130.1 1072.3
2015 11.1 73.3 23.2 7.2 19.2 256.6 19.0 116.6 29.4 34.0 33.3 5.5 161.3 101.2 22.5 126.1 1039.7
2020 10.0 72.1 22.6 7.2 18.4 232.8 18.0 104.8 26.8 31.3 32.6 5.4 159.6 98.2 21.0 122.1 982.7
Source: NWMP (2004) with a taken from Jordan’s water strategy for the year 2022
45
2025
1000a
Table A1.6: Development of water demand of different industries in 1000 m³ Year
1999
Large scale industries Mining and quarrying Coke, refined petroleum products and nuclear fuel Chemicals Other non‐metallic mineral products Total Large‐scale industries annual change in % Other industries Oil & Gas Food products and beverages Tobacco products Textiles Wearing apparel, dressing and dyeing of fur Leather Wood Paper Publishing, printing and reproduction of recorded media Rubber and plastics Basic metals Fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment Machinery and equipment Electrical machinery and apparatus Medical, precision and optical instruments, watches and clocks Motor vehicles, trailers and semi‐trailers Other transport equipment Furniture Electricity, gas, steam and hot water supply Total Other industries annual change in % Total Water consumption therefrom large‐scale industries in % therefrom small‐scale industries in % annual change Total
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
7063.8 22.8 5649.7 1435.3 14171.6 5.0 2605.9 38.5 105.8 125.2 43.8 22.3 552.9 90.3 249.9 206.6 174.3 54.4 90.8 14.4 24.3 0.3 136.4 1192.2 5728.3 19904.9 71.2% 28.8%
2006
2007
7983.9 1023.3 7043.6 4493.9 20544.7 4.5% 2.7 3957.0 120.8 113.7 797.4 42.5 71.5 511.3 391.3 358.3 805.2 466.6 183.0 204.7 61.6 53.6 8.2 313.0 1259.9 9719.6 14.8% 30267.0 67.9% 32.1% 7.6%
10212.5 1142.6 8579.8 5352.9 25287.8 23.1% 2.4 5424.2 118.4 131.4 672.3 67.8 76.3 421.8 237.9 423.3 1045.2 530.5 160.6 82.0 381.4 53.4 9.2 340.2 1285.7 11461.6 17.9% 36751.8 68.8% 31.2% 21.4%
6393.1 23.5 4726.4 1592.8 12735.8 ‐10.1%
6052.6 21.4 4242.3 2171.3 12487.6 ‐1.9%
5858.2 26.1 4886.4 2261.4 13032.1 4.4%
5983.4 59.5 5106.1 2307.8 13456.8 3.3%
7172.1 773.6 6130.2 2743.0 16818.9 25.0%
8670.2 1006.2 6602.3 3384.1 19662.8 16.9%
3.9 2415.5 19.0 79.3 204.5 50.6 23.7 288.8 82.4 284.6 139.8 176.2 71.7 38.5 25.1 29.0 0.2 163.9 1213.3 5306.1 ‐7.4% 18045.8 70.6% 29.4% ‐9.3%
3.6 2470.0 85.8 108.1 196.2 47.6 35.0 279.2 124.6 232.5 327.8 224.3 88.3 74.1 29.9 46.9 0.1 165.2 866.5 5402.1 1.8% 17893.3 69.8% 30.2% ‐0.8%
2.8 2526.0 98.2 107.6 270.9 51.8 33.0 300.5 125.4 216.1 408.8 200.4 89.0 76.7 29.7 21.6 0.3 151.0 956.0 5663.0 4.8% 18697.9 69.7% 30.3% 4.5%
2.8 2455.0 88.5 109.2 356.4 24.4 27.4 321.0 115.4 211.5 493.6 192.6 93.8 77.2 34.4 21.8 0.4 106.4 987.3 5716.3 0.9% 19175.9 70.2% 29.8% 2.6%
3.0 3037.3 106.0 107.2 428.7 51.9 54.6 332.5 187.2 218.6 670.3 245.8 118.8 109.7 35.6 26.7 2.3 117.9 1117.1 6968.2 21.9% 23790.1 70.7% 29.3% 24.1%
2.5 3481.5 99.4 107.1 742.3 35.5 60.8 477.2 215.0 250.2 861.4 342.3 144.4 158.1 62.1 45.8 2.2 186.7 1198.1 8470.1 21.6% 28135.4 69.9% 30.1% 18.3%
Source: estimated from WAJ billing data, based on water tariff for industry in the respective year
Table A1.7: Industrial water use and water resources for 2006‐2009 in MCM 2006 34.4 4.0 38.5
Groundwater Surface water Total
2007 44.9 3.5 48.4
2008 34.3 3.9 38.2
2009 33.0 3.1 36.1
Source: MWI Water budget, 2009
Table A1.8: Summary of natural demand for Jordan Location Al Azraq oasis Wadi Mujeb Wadi Wala Total Dead sea Total
Demand MCM 10 38 6.6 54.6 1200 1254.6
Note Jordan
Regional demand Regional and Jordan demand
Source: based on MW (2004, 2009) and BGR (2004)
46
2008 10761.6 1314.0 10903.7 6958.7 29938.0 18.4% 22.3 7458.6 119.7 106.0 1184.8 58.9 81.8 468.2 311.1 468.5 1828.9 820.1 310.7 118.4 377.5 58.8 40.6 402.0 1400.8 15615.4 36.2% 45575.7 65.7% 34.3% 24.0%
Appendix 2: Water Supply Table A2.1: Long term average surface runoff in MCM for the different surface catchments in Jordan Surface Water Basin Yarmouk River (at Adasiya) Jordan River Valley North Rift Side Wadis South Rift Side Wadis Zarqa River Dead Sea Side Wadis Wadi Mujib Wadi Hasa Wadi Araba North Wadi Araba South Southern Desert Azraq Sirhan Hammad Jafer Total
Base Flow (MCM/year) 105 19.3 36.1 24.8 33.5 54 38.1 27.4 15.6 2.4 0 0.6 0 0 1.9 358.7
Flood Flow (MCM/year) 155 2.4 13.9 7.7 25.7 7.2 45.5 9 2.6 3.2 2.2 26.8 10 13 10 334.2
Total Flow (MCM/year) 260 21.7 50 32.5 59.2 61.2 83.6 36.4 18.2 5.6 2.2 27.4 10 13 11.9 692.9
Source: MWI files, and MEDITATE Project progress report (2004)
Table A2.2: Groundwater basins in Jordan and their safe yields (BGR, 2004) Basin 1. Yarmouk 2. Amman Zarqa 3. Jordan Rift Side wadis 4. Jordan Valley 5. Dead Sea 6. Azraq basin 7. Hammad basin 8. Wadi Araba North 9. Wadi Araba south 10. Sirhan Total renewable 11. Jafer 12. DISI Total Non renewable
Safe yield MCM 30‐35 60‐70 28‐32 15‐20 40‐50 30‐35 12‐16 5‐7 4‐6 7‐10 231‐281 7‐10 100 107‐110
Source: BGR (2004)
47
Figure A2.1: Groundwater basins in Jordan and their estimated safe yields
Source: BGR (2004)
48
Figure A2.2: Safe Yield and over abstraction from the renewable groundwater basins in 2009
Source: based on MWI Water Budget 2009 Table A 2.3:
Projection of Jordan’s water resources
Year Red Dead Conveyance Project / Desalinated water Renewable GW (Abstraction for all uses) Groundwater safe yield Return Flow Over abstraction Desalination brackish water Abu Zighan Deir Alla Area Hisban‐kafrein 1 Mujib Zara Maen at Suweimeh Non ‐ Renewable Groundwater Disi Jafr Lajjoun fossil water Surface water New dams Water harvesting Yarmouk River to Jordan other 2 Peace Treaty 3 Treated Wastewater Total Resources 1 surface water that requires desalination 2 Water Strategy 2 Report: Water use efficiency in Jordan, CEC Source: data provided by MWI, March 2011
2010
405 275 54 76 57 10
47 74 61 7 6 189
30 159 50 117 892
2015 MCM/year 380 275 54 51 82 10 5 20 47 154 122 18 14 197 5 3 30 159 50 165 1.028
2020
2025
210 355 275 54 26 82 10 5 20 47 154 122 18 14 218 25 4 30 159 50 223 1.292
370 329 275 54 0 82 10 5 20 47 154 122 18 14 229 35 5 30 159 50 247 1.461
49
Appendix 3: Water Demand Scenarios Table A3.1: Estimations used in scenario development Sector of water demand and data sets Resident Water Demand (Domestic Water Demand) Set 1: projection of corporate utilities. Estimates for governorates without such utilities based on NGWA average Set 2 : green code projection of corporate utilities, estimates for governorates without such utilities based on NGWA average Set 3 : specification by PMU, interpretation for governorates by MWI Set 4 : specification by PMU, interpretation for governorates by MWI, reductions according to utilities' green code estimates Set 5 : starts with l/c/d of UBS (utilities) in 2010, but increases to MWI medium specification until 2020, proportional increase in the governorates Set 6 : l/c/d according to set 3 (MWI), NRW according to set 1 (utilities)
Used in scenario Trend a, (USB norm) Trend b (USB GC) Aspiration a (CS) Aspiration b (OE)
Inter‐sectorial allocation (IA) Business as usual (BAU) Non‐Resident Water Demand (Commercial, Governmental, Health, Education, other except industry and tourism) Set 1: projection of corporate utilities, estimates for governorates without such All scenarios utilities based on NGWA percentage of domestic water UFW / NRW (unaccounted‐for water / non‐revenue water) in % of municipal water supply Set 1: Estimation of loss development by utilities, sub‐divided in administrative and physical losses (IDARA‐accounting, NRW savings). Other governorates: based on CS, IAA, UBS norm assumption by NGWA Set 2: Estimation of loss development by new specifications of MWI OE, UBS GC (scenario BAU: unchanged loss level of 2009) Industrial Water Demand Set 1: sum of sets 1a‐1c, data on small industries from utilities, data on large IAA, UBS, industries and new mining from MWI Set 1a: Development of WD of "small industries" (industries supplied by municipal IAA, UBS water supply) based on data from utilities Set 1b: large industries (supply by own wells, data by MWI) IAA, UBS Set 1c: new oil shale and uranium mining according to statements of MWI, IAA, UBS, BAU distribution: oil shale: 40% Karak, 40% Tafilah, 20% Ma'an, uranium: 100% Ma'an Set 2: Development of industrial WD according to specifications of MWI summary file CS, OE Set 3: Estimation by (1) set 3a: trend model based on MWI data on industrial WD BAU from 1994 ‐2008 + (2) set 1c: new energies, distribution between governorates according to distribution in set 2 Set 3a: Estimation by trend model based on MWI data on industrial WD from 1994 ‐ BAU 2008 Touristic Water Demand Set 1: Development of WD based on data from utilities UBS, IAA, BAU Set 2: Development of WD based on MWI estimations CS, OE Agricultural Water Demand Set 1: Development of WD based MWI estimates CS, OE, UBS Set 2: Development based MWI estimates ‐ additional domestic water demand in IAA scenario IAA (set1 ‐ set 5 of projected resident WD) Set 3: average (1994‐2008) of current supply according to data from MWI BAU
Source: scenario development workshops MWI, supported b, QUASIR & ATEEC, 2010/11
50
Figure A3.1: Scenario drivers
Table A.3.2: Impact of drivers Situation
baseline
A B C D 1
3 2
Domestic water demand1
Water demand by already Other urban existing industries and infrastructure tourism (commerce, offices, hospitals etc.) 112 l/c/d x medium Percentage of municipal according to growth rate estimate of population1 water demand as stated estimates (MWI/NWMP for by utilities CS, statistical deduction for BAU) 2 120 l/c/d x high estimate Baseline per capita x high growth rate + 50% of population estimate of population 100 l/c/d3 x high estimate Baseline per capita x high growth rate ‐ 50% of population estimate of population 120 l/c/d2 x low estimate of Baseline per capita x low growth rate + 50% population estimate of population 100 l/c/d3 x low estimate of Baseline per capita x low growth rate ‐ 50% population estimate of population
scenario BAU: 96 l/c/d, scenario USB: estimates of utilities scenario BAU: 102.5 l/c/d, scenario USB: estimates of utilities scenario BAU: 85.5 l/c/d, scenario USB: estimates of utilities
51
Table A3.3: Ranges of determinants in water demand
minimum 1
expected
maximum
Avg. demographic growth / year
2.06 %
2.14%
2.62%
Avg. growth Industrial water demand / year
1.3 %
2.6 %
3.9%
Municipal water demand 2010 ‐> 2025
‐ 20%
Aspired: 112 lcd
+ 20%
Trend: 75 –> 83 lcd NRW total / physical
2015
33 % / 13%
38% / 18%
2020
27 % / 7%
36% / 16%
2025
24% / 3.5 %
35% / 14%
water demand management municipal water:
2015
‐ 0%
‐ 19.1 %
‐
2025
‐ 0%
‐ 21.4%
‐
Assumption by utilities
4.5 %
8.1 %
11.1 %
Assumption by MWI
2.9 %
5.5 %
7.7 %
avg. growth in water demand for Tourism
Source: scenario development workshops MWI, supported by QUASIR & ATEEC 2010/11 and data files from MWI and public utilities 1
Data on demographic growth according to HPC, 2009. The analysis of the demographic prognoses led to a request of the scenario developers to the HPC due to some discrepancies in the official figures. The response of HPC was still pending at the end of this study, but may lead to adjustments in the official figures in the future. Scenario calculations in this report rely on the currently authorized figures, which were also published by Jordan's Department of Statistics (DOS).
Table A3.4: Development of water losses, Aspiration & Trend scenarios (a) year:
2010
total
Amman
2015
physical
admin.
total
37,9%
18,8%
19,0%
Balqa
52,2%
34,8%
Zarqa
54,4%
Madaba 1
Irbid 1
Mafraq 1
Jarash
2020
physical
admin.
total
37,1%
17,9%
19,3%
17,4%
47,5%
30,1%
36,2%
18,1%
49,5%
49,6%
33,1%
16,5%
32,4%
20,3%
62,2%
2025
physical
admin.
total
36,4%
16,9%
19,5%
17,4%
44,2%
26,8%
31,4%
18,1%
46,0%
45,2%
28,6%
16,5%
12,1%
30,2%
17,6%
39,0%
23,1%
58,0%
physical
admin.
Utility
35,7%
16,0%
19,7%
Miyahuna
17,4%
40,8%
23,4%
17,4%
WAJ
27,9%
18,1%
42,5%
24,4%
18,1%
WAJ
42,0%
25,4%
16,5%
38,8%
22,3%
16,5%
WAJ
12,6%
28,7%
15,6%
13,0%
27,1%
13,7%
13,4%
NGWA
33,8%
24,2%
55,0%
30,0%
25,0%
52,1%
26,3%
25,8%
NGWA
29,6%
18,6%
11,0%
27,6%
16,1%
11,5%
26,2%
14,3%
11,9%
24,8%
12,5%
12,3%
NGWA
1
Ajlun
33,3%
20,9%
12,4%
31,1%
18,1%
13,0%
29,5%
16,1%
13,4%
27,9%
14,1%
13,8%
NGWA
Karak
58,8%
39,2%
19,6%
53,5%
33,9%
19,6%
49,7%
30,1%
19,6%
46,0%
26,4%
19,6%
WAJ
Tafiela
49,7%
33,2%
16,6%
45,3%
28,7%
16,6%
42,1%
25,5%
16,6%
38,9%
22,3%
16,6%
WAJ
Ma'an
53,1%
36,5%
16,5%
48,1%
31,6%
16,5%
44,6%
28,1%
16,5%
41,1%
24,6%
16,5%
WAJ
Aqaba
22,7%
12,3%
10,4%
20,3%
11,5%
8,8%
18,4%
10,7%
7,6%
18,1%
10,0%
8,1%
AWC
1
NGWA serves 4 governorates and only aggregated accounts were available. The assignment of losses to a specific governorate followed a distribution proportional to the percentage of losses in the last recorded year, i.e. 2009, according to the following formulae: Administrative losses per governorate = ∗ and physical losses per governorate = ∗ with: TLG = Total water losses of Governorate G in %, calculated by
∗
TLN = Total water losses of NGWA in 2009 in % ALN = Administrative water losses of NGWA in the respective year of the scenario as estimated by NGWA RLN = Physical water losses of NGWA in the respective year of the scenario as estimated by NGWA
52
Table A3.5: Development of water losses, Aspiration & Trend scenarios (b) year:
2010
2015
2020
physical
admin.
total
11,6%
19,3%
25,2%
2025
physical
admin.
total
5,7%
19,5%
21,6%
total
physical
admin.
total
Amman
37,9%
18,8%
19,0%
30,9%
physical
admin.
utility
1,9%
19,7%
Miyahuna
Balqa
52,2%
34,8%
17,4%
42,6%
25,2%
17,4%
34,7%
17,3%
17,4%
28,3%
10,9%
17,4%
NWMP
Zarqa
54,4%
36,2%
18,1%
44,3%
26,2%
18,1%
36,1%
18,0%
18,1%
29,5%
11,3%
18,1%
NWMP
Madaba
49,6%
33,1%
16,5%
40,4%
23,9%
16,5%
33,0%
16,4%
16,5%
26,9%
10,4%
16,5%
NWMP
Irbid
32,4%
20,3%
12,1%
26,4%
13,8%
12,6%
22,7%
9,6%
13,0%
19,5%
6,0%
13,4%
NGWA
Mafraq
62,2%
39,0%
23,1%
50,7%
26,4%
24,2%
45,0%
20,0%
25,0%
45,8%
20,0%
25,8%
NGWA
Jarash
29,6%
18,6%
11,0%
25,4%
13,9%
11,5%
21,8%
9,9%
11,9%
18,7%
6,5%
12,3%
NGWA
Ajlun
33,3%
20,9%
12,4%
27,1%
14,2%
13,0%
23,3%
9,9%
13,4%
20,0%
6,2%
13,8%
NGWA NWMP
Karak
58,8%
39,2%
19,6%
47,9%
28,3%
19,6%
39,1%
19,5%
19,6%
31,9%
12,3%
19,6%
Tafiela
49,7%
33,2%
16,6%
40,6%
24,0%
16,6%
33,1%
16,5%
16,6%
27,0%
10,4%
16,6%
NWMP
Ma'an
53,1%
36,5%
16,5%
43,3%
26,7%
16,5%
35,3%
18,7%
16,5%
28,8%
12,2%
16,5%
NWMP
Aqaba
22,7%
12,3%
10,4%
19,5%
10,7%
8,8%
18,6%
10,9%
7,6%
17,7%
9,5%
8,1%
AWC
1
NGWA serves 4 governorates and only aggregated accounts were available. The assignment of losses to a specific governorate in 2010 followed a distribution proportional to the percentage of losses in the last recorded year, i.e. 2009, according to the formulae stated in table A1.3.1. Physical water losses in all other5‐ year intervals are calculated according to the specifications of MWI by 5 If total losses in previous interval > 30%: total losses * (1‐0.96) – administrative losses of current interval 5 If total losses in previous interval > 20% and < 30%: total losses * (1‐0.97) – administrative losses of current interval 5 If total losses in previous interval < 20%: total losses * (1‐0.99) – administrative losses of current interval Administrative water losses develop according to the assumptions of the corporate utilities
Development of water demand, "Aspiration" scenarios1
Table A3.6:
year
2010 1
2
3
4 5
(min‐max)
476
527
573
422
(437‐515)
(498‐586)
(559‐657)
(381‐450)
(min‐max)
Tourism (min‐max)
(min‐max)
9
10
(359‐442)
424 (380‐486)
64
90
107
117
64
90
107
117
(64‐64)
(77‐103)
(98‐115)
(112‐122)
(64‐64)
(77‐103)
(98‐115)
(112‐122)
13
21
26
29
13
21
26
29
(13‐13)
(17‐25)
(19‐34)
(20‐40)
(13‐13)
(17‐25)
(19‐34)
(20‐40)
0
0
70 30 819
0
0
70 30 670
499
587
499
490
(458‐527)
(531‐643)
(666‐785)
(791‐919)
(458‐527)
(437‐538)
(526‐640)
(612‐748)
863
1069
1214
775
863
1069
1214
775
277
276
390
425
277
373
519
574
(248‐317)
(220‐332)
(314‐433)
(325‐453)
(248‐318)
(325‐426)
(459‐573)
(496‐633)
TWW² (min‐max)
(343‐410)
2025
20 30 580
Resources³(without TWW) Remaining Water Resources1 8 Freshwater (min‐max)
Scenario (b), OE MCM/year 2015 2020 379 397
20 30 709
7
2010
(381‐450)
Industry
Nuclear Reactors Freshwater TWW² Total (sum 1‐4)
2025
422
Water Demand 1 Municipal
Scenario (a), CS MCM/year 2015 2020
217
248
246
271
217
200
182
197
(197‐232)
(227‐270)
(229‐280)
(260‐319)
(197‐232)
(180‐217)
(159‐208)
(170‐233)
494
524
636
696
494
573
701
771
(480‐514)
(490‐559)
(594‐662)
(644‐713)
(480‐515)
(543‐606)
(667‐732)
(729‐803)
117
165
223
247
117
165
223
247
0
97
130
149
(min‐max) 0 (94‐105) (139‐144) 1 2 Figures represent the situation under a medium demographic and economic development, TWW = treated wastewater ³ Information from MWI, data file from 30.03.2011
(171‐180)
11
12
Total (min‐max)
For comparison: planned TWW by MWI³ Freshwater savings
53
Table A3.7:
Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy), "Aspiration" scenarios
year Municipal
Value1 JD/m³
Scenario (a), CS Million JD/year 2015 2020 709 785
Scenario (b), OE Million JD/year 2015 2020 565 592
1.49²
2010 628
2025 854
2010 628
2025 632
(min‐max)
(568‐671)
(651‐767)
Industry
77.63³
4,962
6,990
(742‐873)
(834‐979)
(568‐671)
(520‐610)
(562‐658)
8,274
9,083
4,962
6,990
8,274
(min‐max)
(4,962‐ 4,962)
(5,976‐ 8,004)
9,083
(7;632‐ 8;917)
(8;679‐ 9;487)
(4,962‐ 4,962)
(5,976‐ 8,004)
(7;632‐ 8;917)
(8;679‐ 9;487)
Tourism
107.004
366
589
723
812
366
589
723
812
(min‐max)
(366‐366)
(478‐700)
(532‐940)
(565‐ 1,113)
(366‐366)
(478‐700)
(532‐940)
(565‐ 1,113)
(620‐725)
0.595
278
296
358
392
278
323
395
434
(min‐max)
(270‐290)
(276‐317)
(335‐380)
(363‐415)
(270‐290)
(306‐342)
(376‐412)
(411‐452)
Total
6,235
8,583
10,141
11,141
6,235
8,466
9,985
10,961
(min‐max)
Agriculture
(6,186‐ (7,421‐ (10,492‐ (10,492‐ (6,186‐ (7,314‐ (9,139‐ (10,315‐ 6,269) 9,747) 11,942) 11,942) 6,269) 9,620) 10,890) 11,735) 1 2 average values per sector, cf, water valuation report, July 2011, value based on total costs of public network and opportunity costs 4 ³ operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, net value added per m³ in hotels and restaurants 5 operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, weighted by total operation surplus per type of crops
Table A3.8:
Water losses (NRW), "Aspiration" scenarios
Scenario (a), CS
Scenario (b), OE
MCM/year
MCM/year
year Type of losses administrative (min‐max)
2010
2015
2020
2025
2010
2015
2020
2025
52
60
68
76
52
50
56
62
(47‐55)
(54‐65)
(62‐76)
(68‐88)
(47‐55)
(45‐54)
(50‐62)
(56‐71)
physical
74
77
79
78
74
49
36
24
(min‐max)
(67‐79)
(69‐83)
(71‐88)
(70‐90)
(67‐79)
(44‐53)
(32‐40)
(22‐28)
Million JD/year
Value of physical losses in JD1 (min‐max) 1
Million JD/year
41.9
43.3
44.5
44.2
41.9
27.5
20.2
13.8
(37.8‐44.7)
(39.1‐46.8)
(40.1‐49.5)
(39.4‐50.7)
(37.8‐44.7)
(24.9‐29.8)
(18.2‐22.4)
(12.3‐15.8)
based on the current average value of 0.59 JD/m³ for water use in the agricultural sector
54
Table 3.9: Development of water demand, "Trend" scenarios 1
year
Scenario (a), UBS‐norm 2010
Scenario(b), UBS‐GC
MCM/year 2015 2020
2025
2010
MCM/year 2015 2020
2025
1
Water Demand 1 Municipal 258 320 379 433 258 257 289 (min‐max) (258‐258) (319‐325) (377‐396) (426‐466) (258‐258) (256‐261) (287‐302) 2 Industry 52 78 91 100 52 78 91 (min‐max) (52‐52) (73‐83) (82‐102) (89‐113) (52‐52) (73‐83) (82‐102) 3 Tourism 6 10 18 19 6 10 18 (min‐max) (6‐6) (8‐12) (11‐27) (11‐29) (6‐6) (8‐12) (11‐27) 4 Nuclear Reactors Freshwater 20 70 20 TWW² 30 30 30 5 Total (sum 1‐4) 315 407 538 652 315 345 449 (min‐max) (315‐316) (400‐419) (520‐574) (626‐709) (315‐316) (337‐356) (430‐481) 7 Resources³(without 775 863 1069 1214 775 863 1069 TWW) 1 Remaining Water Resources 8 Freshwater 460 456 561 592 460 518 650 (min‐max) (460‐460) (444‐463) (525‐579) (536‐618) (460‐460) (507‐526) (618‐669) 9 TWW² 132 165 169 196 132 133 124 (min‐max) (132‐132) (163‐168) (164‐181) (189‐218) (132‐132) (132‐137) (119‐135) 10 Total 592 620 729 788 592 651 774 (min‐max) (592‐592) (612‐627) (706‐743) (753‐807) (592‐592) (643‐658) (753‐788) 11 For comparison: 117 165 223 247 117 165 223 planned TWW by MWI³ 12 Freshwater savings 0 62 90 (min‐max) 0 (62‐63) (90‐94) 1 2 Figures represent the situation under a medium demographic and economic development, TWW = treated wastewater ³ planned by MWI
Table 3.10:
Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy), "Trend" scenarios
Value
year Municipal (min‐max) Industry (min‐max)
JD/m³
Table 3.11:
Water losses (NRW) ), "Trend" scenarios
1
Scenario (a), UBS‐norm
324 (319‐350) 100 (89‐113) 19 (11‐29) 70 30 543 (519‐592) 1214
701 (653‐726) 141 (135‐159) 842 (812‐861) 247 109 (107‐117)
Scenario (b), UBS‐GC
Million JD/year Million JD/year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2010 2015 2020 2025 1.49² 384 476 564 645 384 383 431 483 (384‐384) (475‐484) (561‐590) (635‐695) (384‐384) (382‐389) (428‐451) (475‐521) 77.63³ 4,022 6,055 7,097 7,796 4,022 6,055 7,097 7,796 (4,022‐ (5,659‐ (6,352‐ (6,875‐ (4,022‐ (5,659‐ (6,352‐ (6,875‐ 4,022) 6,451) 8,808) 8,808) 4,022) 6,451) 8,808) 8,808) 4 Tourism 107.00 166 274 509 532 166 274 509 532 (min‐max) (166‐166) (220‐328) (313‐752) (321‐802) (166‐166) (220‐328) (313‐752) (321‐802) 5 Agriculture 0.59 333 350 411 444 333 367 436 475 (min‐max) (333‐333) (345‐353) (398‐419) (424‐455) (333‐333) (363‐371) (424‐444) (457‐485) Total 4,905 7,155 8,581 9,417 4,905 7,079 8,473 9,286 (min‐max) (4,905‐ (6,707‐ (7,645‐ (8,285‐ (4,905‐ (6,632‐ (7,537‐ (8,156‐ 4,905) 7,607) 9,628) 10,730) 4,905) 7,531) 9,515) 10,589) 1 2 average values per sector, cf, water valuation report, July 2011, value based on total costs of public network and opportunity costs 4 ³ operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, net value added per m³ in hotels and restaurants 5 operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, weighted by total operation surplus per type of crops
year Type of losses administrative (min‐max) physical (min‐max) 1 Value of physical losses in JD (min‐max)
Scenario (a) UBS‐norm 2010 32 (32‐32) 45 (45‐45)
MCM/year 2015 2020
Scenario (b) UBS GC 2025
2010
41 50 58 32 (41‐42) (49‐52) (57‐63) (32‐32) 52 57 60 45 (52‐53) (57‐60) (59‐64) (45‐45) Million JD/year 25.7 29.3 32.4 33.8 25.7 (25.7‐ (29.3‐ (32.2‐ (33.3‐ (25.7‐ 25.7) 29.8) 33.9) 36.4) 25.7) 1 based on the current average value of 0.59 JD/m³ for water use in the agricultural sector
MCM/year 2015 2020 34 41 (34‐35) (41‐43) 33 27 (33‐34) (27‐28) Million JD/year 18.9 15.2 (18.9‐ (15.1‐ 19.2) 15.9)
55
2025 48 (47‐52) 20 (19‐21) 11.1 (11.0‐ 12.0)
Table A3.12:
year
Development of water demand, ), "Inter‐sectoral allocation" scenario1 Scenario Trend (a),UBS‐norm MCM/year 2015 2020
2010
Scenario Inter‐sectoral allocation, IAA‐UBS 2025
2010
1
Water Demand 1 Municipal 258 320 379 433 258 (min‐max) (258‐258) (319‐325) (377‐396) (426‐466) (258‐258) 2 Industry 52 78 91 100 52 (min‐max) (52‐52) (73‐83) (82‐102) (89‐113) (52‐52) 3 Tourism 6 10 18 19 6 (min‐max) (6‐6) (8‐12) (11‐27) (11‐29) (6‐6) 4 Nuclear Reactors Freshwater 20 70 TWW² 30 30 5 Total (sum 1‐4) 315 407 538 652 315 (min‐max) (315‐316) (400‐419) (520‐574) (626‐709) (315‐316) 7 Resources³(without 775 863 1069 1214 775 TWW) 1 Remaining Water Resources 8 Freshwater 460 456 561 592 460 (min‐max) (460‐460) (444‐463) (525‐579) (536‐618) (460‐460) 9 TWW² 132 165 169 196 132 (min‐max) (132‐132) (163‐168) (164‐181) (189‐218) (132‐132) 10 Total 592 620 729 788 592 (min‐max) (592‐592) (612‐627) (706‐743) (753‐807) (592‐592) 11 For comparison: 117 165 223 247 117 planned TWW by MWI³ 1 Figures represent the situation under a medium demographic and economic development 2 TWW = treated wastewater ³ planned by MWI
MCM/year 2015 2020 385 (384‐390) 78 (73‐83) 10 (8‐12)
2025
472 (465‐485) 863
527 (525‐550) 91 (82‐102) 18 (11‐27) 20 30 687 (668‐729) 1069
70 30 792 (765‐859) 1214
391 (378‐398) 197 (196‐201) 588 (594‐579) 165
412 (370‐431) 243 (238‐258) 655 (629‐669) 223
452 (385‐480) 266 (258‐293) 718 (678‐738) 247
573 (565‐617) 100 (89‐113) 19 (11‐29)
Table A3.13:
Valuation of water use (except nuclear energy), "Inter‐sectoral allocation" scenario
Value
JD/m³
1
Scenario Trend (a),UBS‐norm
Scenario Inter‐sectoral allocation, IAA‐UBS
Million JD/year
year
2010
2015
2020
Million JD/year 2025
2010
2015
2020
2025
Municipal
1.49²
384
476
564
645
384
573
785
854
(min‐max)
(384‐384)
(475‐484)
(561‐590)
(635‐695)
(384‐384)
(572‐582)
(782‐820)
(841‐920)
Industry
77.63³
4,022
6,055
7,097
7,796
4,022
6,055
7,097
7,796
107.00
(4,022‐ 4,022) 166
(5,659‐ 6,451) 274
(6,352‐ 8,808) 509
(6,875‐ 8,808) 532
(4,022‐ 4,022) 166
(5,659‐ 6,451) 274
(6,352‐ 8,808) 509
(6,875‐ 8,808) 532
(min‐max) Tourism
4
(min‐max)
(166‐166)
(220‐328)
(313‐752)
(321‐802)
(166‐166)
(220‐328)
(313‐752)
(321‐802)
0.59
333
350
411
444
333
331
369
405
(min‐max)
(333‐333)
(345‐353)
(398‐419)
(424‐455)
(333‐333)
(335‐326)
(354‐377)
(382‐416)
Total
4,905
7,155
8,581
9,417
4,905
7,233
8,760
9,587
(min‐max)
(4,905‐ (6,707‐ (7,645‐ (8,285‐ (4,905‐ (6,786‐ (7,824‐ 4,905) 7,607) 9,628) 10,730) 4,905) 7,687) ( 9,814) 1 average values per sector, cf, water valuation report, July 2011 2 value based on total costs of public network and opportunity costs ³ operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008 4 net value added per m³ in hotels and restaurants 5 operation surplus according to UNSNA definitions per m³ in 2008, weighted by total operation surplus per type of crops
(8,453‐ 10,912)
Agriculture
5
56
Table A3.14:
Water losses (NRW), "Inter‐sectoral allocation" scenario
Scenario UBS‐norm
MCM/year
year
2010
Type of losses
2015
administrative (min‐max) physical (min‐max)
Scenario IAA‐UBS MCM/year
2020
2025
2010
2015
2025
32
41
50
58
32
49
68
76
(32‐32)
(41‐42)
(49‐52)
(57‐63)
(32‐32)
(49‐50)
(68‐71)
(75‐81)
45
52
57
60
45
62
79
78
(45‐45)
(52‐53)
(57‐60)
(59‐64)
(45‐45)
(62‐63)
(78‐82)
(77‐84)
Million JD/year
Value of physical 1 losses in JD (min‐max)
2020
Million JD/year
25.7
29.3
32.4
33.8
25.7
35.1
44.5
44.2
(25.7‐25.7)
(29.3‐29.8)
(32.2‐33.9)
(33.3‐36.4)
(25.7‐25.7)
(35.0‐35.6)
(44.3‐46.5)
(43.5‐47.6)
1
based on the current average value of 0.56 JD/m³ for water use in the agricultural sector
Table A3.15: Potential availability of water for agriculture under the different scenario assumptions Year Scenario Aspiration (a), CS (min‐max) Aspiration (b), OE (min‐max) Trend (a), UBS‐norm (min‐max) Trend (b), UBS‐GC (min‐max) Intersectoral allocation, IAA‐UBS (min‐max) Min (min) Max (max) average
2010
2015
2020
2025
MCM/year
494 (480‐514) 494 (480‐515) 592 (592‐592) 592 (592‐592) 592 (592‐592)
524 (490‐559) 573 (543‐606)
636 (594‐662) 701 (667‐732)
620 (612‐627) 651 (643‐658) 588 (594‐579)
729 (706‐743) 774 (753‐788) 655 (629‐669)
696 (644‐713) 771 (729‐803) 788 (753‐807) 842 (812‐861) 718 (678‐738)
494 (480) 592 (592) 552,8
524 (490) 651 (658) 591,2
639 (594) 774 (778) 699
696 (644) 842 (861) 763
57
TableA3.16: Estimated crop water requirements and calculated amounts of treated wastewater from all scenarios year
2010
2015
1
2020
1
CWR
1
TWW CWR TWW CWR TWW Average Average Average (min‐max) (min‐max) (min‐max) Governorate MCM/year MCM/year MCM/year Ajloun 12,2 3,1 11,1 3,4 10,0 3,8 (1.9‐4.3) (1.9‐4.9) (2.1‐5.5) Amman 73,8 75,7 73,3 82,5 72,1 92,7 (55.4‐95.9) (54.5‐110.6) (59.9‐125.5) Aqaba 31,1 10,6 30,4 15,2 29,8 20,2 (8.6‐12.6) (10.3‐20.1) (13.2‐27.3) Balqa 289,1 11,2 275,8 12,0 251,2 13,5 (7.8‐14.5) (7.8‐16.3) (8.7‐18.3) Irbid 141,5 26,5 135,6 28,9 122,8 32,8 (18.7‐34.3) (18.6‐39.1) (21.2‐44.4) Jarash 30,7 4,6 29,4 5,1 26,8 5,8 (3.2‐6.0) (3.4‐6.9) (3.8‐7.8) Karak 69 6,2 67,3 6,7 63,9 7,5 (4.4‐8.1) (4.3‐9.1) (4.8‐10.2) Madaba 5,6 4,1 5,5 4,4 5,4 5,0 (2.9‐5.3) (2.9‐6.0) (3.2‐6.7) Mafraq 162,3 8,1 161,3 8,7 159,6 9,7 (6.5‐9.7) (6.5‐10.9) (7.3‐12.2) Ma’an 106,7 3,1 101,2 3,3 98,2 3,7 (2.2‐4.0) (2.1‐4.5) (2.4‐5.0) Tafilah 23,4 2,3 22,5 2,5 21,0 2,8 (1.6‐3.0) (1.6‐3.3) (1.8‐3.8) Zarqa 130,1 26,4 126,1 28,4 122,1 31,8 (18.5‐34.2) (18.3‐38.5) (20.5‐43.2) Jordan 1075,5 181,8 1039,5 201,1 982,9 229,3 (131.8‐231.7) (132.1‐270.0) (148.8‐309.8) 1 crop water requirement according to NWMP, cf. diagnostic report, table 12 2 TWW = treated wastewater based on a recycling rate of 50% of water for municipal and touristic purposes
Table A3.17: Difference between estimated agricultural water demand and water availability for agriculture under different scenario assumptions in MCM/year Year Estimated agricultural water 1 demand Scenario² Aspiration (a), CS Aspiration (b), OE Trend (a), UBS‐norm Trend (b), UBS‐GC Intersectoral Allocation, IAA‐UBS
2010
2015
2020
2025
1072,3
1039,7
982,7
1000
578,3 578,3 480,3 480,3 529,3
515,7 466,7 419,7 388,7 447,7
346,7 281,7 253,7 208,7 272,7
304 229 212 158 225,75
Average Difference 529,3 447,7 272,7 225,75 Maximal Difference 578,3 515,7 343,7 304 Minimal Maximal Difference³ 480,3 388,7 208,7 158 1 2010‐2020 according to NWMP, 2025 according to Jordan’s water strategy for the year 2022 cf. diagnostic report, table 12 2 Figures under the assumption of medium developments of the drivers demographic and economic growth
58
Appendix 4: Water Values The value of water is a comparative criterion and varies with the intended analysis of the valuation. The water valuation in the present Water Demand Management Study focuses on the comparison between benefits from and costs for water. Such an analysis would require marginal values in the ideal case, i.e. the costs and values of the last m³ used for a specific purpose. However, current data allow for a valuation on the basis of average values only. The use of these values for other analyses should thus be treated with caution. The value of water for municipal water users depends on the current costs for water provision and the opportunity costs of a potential use of this water by another client. This implies for the comparison with other sectors that an increase in water costs increases the value of municipal water value, but decreases the net value of water in other sectors. Current water values range from 1.36 JD/m³ in Amman to 1.61 JD/m³ in the northern regions with a nationwide average of 1.49 JD/m³. Table A4.1: Domestic water value calculations Amman Residential water bill revenues (Million JD) Residential billed water (MCM) Average water price for residential users (JD/m3) Non‐residential water price (JD/m3) Opportunity Cost (JD/m3) Total cost (JD/m3 billed) Water value (JD/m3)
North region
Aqaba
Rest of Jordan
Total (Jordan)
38.61 75.35
9.26 32.74
1.26 3.31
11.33 40.08
60.47 151.49
0.51 1 0.49 0.87 1.36
0.28 1 0.72 0.89 1.61
0.38 1 0.62 0.80 1.42
0.28 1 0.72 1.20 1.91
0.40 1 0.60 0.89 1.49
Source: Based on revenue data 2004 for Aqaba and of 2008 for other regions.
The operation surplus (OS) of Jordan’s industries, i.e. the approximate pre‐tax profit income8, amounted to about 2.48 billion JD in 2008, which corresponded to a related water productivity of about 55 JD/m³. This was well below the 6‐year average of about 78 JD/m³.
8
The operation surplus represents the difference between the gross value added including producer subsidies minus (1) the consumption of fixed capital, (2) compensation for employees and (3) indirect taxes (definition according to the United Nations System of National Accounts, UNSNA) 59
Water values vary highly between industries and are naturally lowest in sectors with high water demands. Industrial sectors with the lowest profits per m³ in the inflation‐adjusted 6‐year average were mining and quarrying, chemicals and food products, which are simultaneously the largest industrial water consumers. Their weighted OS amounted from 38 up to 46 JD/m³. Sectors on the upper end of profits per m³ include oil, gas, coke and petroleum products with 680 up to more than 5.574 JD/m³, but consume less than 2% of the total water for industries.
Table A4.22: Water Values in Jordan’s industrial sector, unweighted averages (2003‐2008) Water Consumption M3
Economic Activity Ext. Petroleum and natural gas Mining and quarrying Man. of food & beverages Man. tobacco products Man. textiles Man. wearing apparel Tanning of leather Man. Wood & Cork products Man. Paper & Paper products Publishing & printing Man. Coke & refined petroleum Man. Chemicals Man. Rubber & Plastics Man. non‐metallic mineral Man. basic metals Man. fabricated metal products Man. machinery and equipment Man. electrical machinery Man. Medical optical instruments Man. motor vehicles Man. transport equipment Man. Furniture Electricity, gas, & Steam Total industry
2,680 8,004,420 3,671,000 106,620 113,720 599,420 44,420 58,120 412,760 229,360 801,040 6,692,400 292,380 3,656,340 775,140 355,560 140,120 126,340 115,020 40,260 4,460 212,840 1,169,620 27,624,040
Gross Operation Gross value Output per surplus Per added Per M3 M3 M3 4,643 59 254 2,402 523 504 518 598 339 595 3,121 121 533 146 413 658 784 1,738 260 1,084 913 653 298 283
4,386 34 71 1,517 228 278 176 219 114 295 298 41 176 71 143 247 272 437 109 369 517 270 123 86
60
3,408 17 26 71 111 200 71 121 40 102 388 21 70 32 67 137 122 211 33 160 312 130 25 45
A complete separation of water demands by tourism from transport and commercial services for the local population is difficult. Hotels and restaurants consumed about 7.8 MCM in 2007, which corresponded to an OS of about 38 JD/m³. Water values in other sectors where distinctly higher and ranged from 66 JD/m3 in food and beverages sales up to 303 JD/m3 for the repair of personnel and household equipment.
Table A4.3: Water Values in Tourism and Services sector, averages (2003‐2008) ISIC‐ Code
Economic Activity
55 522 50 523 524 526 521 51 525
Hotels and restaurants Retail sale of food & beverage Sale, maintenance of vehicles Other retail trade Retail sale of second‐hand Repair of personal &household Non‐specialized retail trade Wholesale trade Retail trade not in stores Total Services
Water Consumption m3
Gross Output per m3
Gross value added Per m3
Net Value Added Per m3
Operation surplus Per m3
4,773,080 901,360 1,883,480 925,620 34,760 28,140 386,460 739,700 4,980 9,677,580
74 99 138 317 382 424 435 671 3,349 176
38 66 107 219 259 303 320 535 2,302 123
28 63 103 202 230 272 255 471 329 107
7 45 55 110 168 237 185 138 1,650 49
Table A4.4: Water Values in other sectors, averages (2003‐2008) ISIC‐ Code 45 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 70 71 72 74 80 85 85 91 92 92 93
Economic Activity
Total: Construction‐Contractors Land transport; transport Water transport Air transport Supporting and auxiliary activities Post and telecommunications financial intermediation Total Insurance Administration of financial markets Real estate activities Renting of mach.& equipment Computer & related activities Other business activities Education Health activities Non‐profit : Social work activities Non‐profit : membership org. Recreational, cultural & sporting Non‐profit : Sporting activities Other service activities Total
Water Consumption m3 2,668,560 199,900 46,320 85,820 2,407,440 258,500 383,680 77,300 46,140 308,220 50,940 50,600 348,360 1,122,920 1,199,200 147,320 633,500 394,900 154,260 610,540 11,194,420
Net Gross Gross Value value Output added Per Added per m3 Per m3 m3 303 73 65 3,516 2,232 1,871 1,718 762 352 5,270 1,278 1,030 153 106 98 3,306 2,298 1,799 1,509 1,171 1,105 792 461 434 1,522 1,293 1,226 121 91 74 339 216 138 574 390 258 461 313 294 243 186 165 164 93 75 142 84 59 143 80 58 123 62 33 57 26 19 77 49 47 438 249 212
61
Operation surplus Per m3 24 1,514 502 318 63 977 582 140 970 49 52 155 114 40 27 0 0 ‐10 0 31 112
Proportional variations in values of water for agricultural production are on a similar scale as for water in industry, but considerable lower in absolute terms. The OS in crop production ranged from 0.011 JD/m³ for some millet varieties up to nearly 4 JD/m³ for cucumbers in 2008. Average, weighted OS per group of crops amounted to 0.288 JD/m³ for field crops, 0.789 JD/m³ for vegetables and 0.149 JD/m³ for fruit trees under the cropping pattern in 2008. The overall average OS in crop production amounted to 0.563 JD/m³ in 2008. However, these values are subject to changes between the years due to the variations in prices for agricultural products as well as in cropping patterns. Livestock husbandry consumes less than 2% of the water for agricultural purposes but yields much higher returns per m³. However, accessible data allowed for the calculation of the Gross Value Added only, which ranged in 2009 from about 9 JD/m³ for laying hens up to 56 JD/m³ in hatcheries. The average Gross Value Added in Livestock production amounted to 18.06 JD/m³ in the year of reference.
Table A4. 3: Water Values and gross margin per unit area for selected crops irrigated with the blended and fresh water.
Cultivation Crop method Cucumber Plastic house Tomato Plastic house Cabbage Open field Potato Open field Sweet pepper Open field Hot pepper Open field Squash Open field Bean Plastic house Eggplant Plastic house Eggplant Open field Average Tomato Sweet pepper Hot Pepper Onion Potato Beans Average
CWR m3/du 336 344 197 384 924 462 197 241 1000 500
Open field Open field Plastic house Open field Open field Open field
398 536 1072 471 350 213
Autumn Season Fresh water (KAC) Blended Treated WW (KTD) Yield GM Profit Yield GM Profit JD/du (JD/m3) kg/du JD/du (JD/m3) kg/du 9,871 470.7 1.401 8,581 439.4 1.308 10,500 783.0 2.276 8,647 462.6 1.345 3,800 97.9 0.497 3,000 100.3 0.509 3,400 201.6 0.525 2,500 137.9 0.359 5,600 288.7 0.312 3,599 223.3 0.242 2,200 107.9 0.234 2,342 59.0 0.128 3,000 227.7 1.156 3,245 166.8 0.847 2,950 976.1 4.050 860 129.8 0.539 10,901 294.8 0.295 7,500 203.0 0.203 5,051 105.1 0.210 4,053 70.3 0.141 355.3 1.096 199.2 0.562 Spring Season 7,950 574.2 1.443 5,300 313.2 0.787 3,000 174.3 0.325 1,680 97.6 0.182 4,400 448.1 0.418 4,400 406.0 0.379 3,000 343.7 0.730 2,500 185.6 0.394 5,000 719.2 2.055 4,500 546.7 1.562 1,300 556.8 2.614 784 146.5 0.688 469.4 1.264 282.6 0.665
Source: Estimated from primary data collected by ATEEC
62
Table A4.6: Computed water values (JD/m3) for Field Crops in 2008 No.
Crops
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Wheat Barley Lentils Vetch Chick‐peas Maize Sorghum Broom millet Tobacco Garlic Sesame Clover Alfalfa Others FC Field Crops
Gross Output (JD/ M3)
Value Added (JD/M3)
Operation Surplus (JD/M3)
0.261 0.232 0.105 0.120 0.254 0.593 0.282 0.033 0.061 5.928 0.079 0.851 0.006 0.005 0.661
0.183 0.167 0.063 0.072 0.152 0.284 0.147 0.018 0.034 3.438 0.040 0.596 0.004 0.003 0.441
0.130 0.126 0.035 0.040 0.084 0.166 0.090 0.011 0.017 2.015 0.021 0.392 0.003 0.001 0.288
Table A4.7: Computed water values (JD/m3) for vegetables in 2008 No.
Crops
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Tomatoes Squash Eggplants Cucumber Potato Cabbage Cauliflower Hot pepper Sweet pepper Broad beans String beans Peas Cow‐peas Jew's mallow Okra Lettuce Sweet melon Water melon Spinach Onion green Onion dry Snake cucumber Turnip Carrot Parsley Radish Others Veg Vegetables
Gross Output (JD/ M3)
Gross Value added (JD/M3)
Operation Surplus (JD/M3)
1.660 1.330 1.675 8.650 1.851 1.670 1.697 0.590 3.983 1.659 3.429 1.885 2.548 1.745 2.684 1.662 2.675 2.892 1.303 1.420 1.225 1.248 1.641 2.040 1.860 1.015 0.303 1.921
1.171 0.678 1.052 6.055 0.981 1.052 1.069 0.386 2.549 1.079 2.639 1.225 1.631 0.994 1.756 1.088 1.352 1.648 0.853 0.824 0.686 0.817 1.074 1.335 1.217 0.664 0.199 1.233
0.768 0.452 0.625 3.957 0.555 0.752 0.764 0.248 1.368 0.846 2.241 0.961 1.249 0.768 1.013 0.790 0.726 0.867 0.541 0.540 0.380 0.471 0.620 0.770 0.702 0.383 0.115 0.789
63
Table A4.8: Computed water values (JD/m3) for Fruit Trees in 2008 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Crops Lemons Oranges, local Oranges, navel Oranges, red Oranges, Valencia Oranges, French Oranges, Shamouti Clementine Mandarins Grapefruits Medn. mandarins Pummelors Olives Grapes Figs Almonds Peaches Plums, prunes Apricots Apples Pomegranates Pears Guava Dates Bananas Others FT
Fruit trees
Gross Output (JD/ M3) 0.483 0.526 0.480 0.703 0.574 0.579 0.856 0.286 0.119 0.307 0.910 0.410 0.115 0.562 0.193 0.463 0.526 0.462 0.834 0.657 0.936 0.335 0.485 0.280 0.987 0.142
Gross Value added (JD/M3) 0.295 0.357 0.326 0.478 0.390 0.393 0.582 0.195 0.069 0.184 0.546 0.246 0.069 0.276 0.135 0.310 0.337 0.208 0.534 0.506 0.477 0.214 0.310 0.218 0.790 0.085
Operation Surplus (JD/M3) 0.188 0.231 0.211 0.309 0.253 0.255 0.377 0.126 0.043 0.117 0.346 0.156 0.044 0.202 0.108 0.245 0.221 0.092 0.350 0.368 0.356 0.141 0.204 0.148 0.513 0.054
0.338
0.226
0.149
Table A4.9: Computed water values (JD/m3) for Livestock sub‐sector in 2009
Sheep & Goat Cattle Broilers Layers Parent Stock Hatchery Livestock
Gross Output 270.49 104.47 241.14 65.80 45.62 43.15 770.66
Intermediate Consumption 158.16 89.46 220.44 59.94 36.20 32.26 596.49
Value Added 112.32 15.02 20.70 5.85 9.41 10.89 174.17
Water Consumption 5.21 1.46 1.42 0.65 0.71 0.19 9.65
Gross Output Per M3 51.95 71.41 170.04 101.32 63.89 221.91 79.89
Value Added M3 21.57 10.26 14.59 9.01 13.18 56.00 18.06
64
% Cost of Water 2.47 1.23 0.48 0.81 1.48 0.45 1.21
Appendix 5: Cost Benefit Analyses of WDM measures Table A5.1: WDM municipal water, program "Green Code", "Awareness Programme" & "Institutions and Policies" Year
Investment Cost
unit
Total
O&M costs
Total Cost
Accum. Costs
Designed Capacity
Water value
Cash flow
discounted costs
discounted value
discounted cash flow
accum. discounted costs JD
accum. discounted cash flow JD
discounted costs/m³ JD
discounted cash flow/m3 JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
MCM
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
0
44.051.217
1.644.769
45.695.986
45.695.986
2.000.000
1.020.000
‐44.675.986
45.695.986
1.020.000
‐44.675.986
45.695.986
‐44.675.986
22.85
‐22.34
1
44.051.217
3.006.205
47.057.422
92.753.408
10.500.000
5.355.000
‐41.702.422
44.393.794
5.051.887
‐39.341.907
90.089.780
‐84.017.893
7,21
‐6,72
2
44.051.217
4.537.641
48.588.858
141.342.265
12.750.000
6.502.500
‐42.086.358
43.243.910
5.787.202
‐37.456.708
133.333.690
‐121.474.601
5,28
‐4,81
3
31.000.000
5.037.641
36.037.641
177.379.906
15.375.000
7.841.250
‐28.196.391
30.257.898
6.583.665
‐23.674.233
163.591.588
‐145.148.835
4,03
‐3,57
4
0
5.537.641
5.537.641
182.917.547
18.562.500
9.466.875
3.929.234
4.386.330
7.498.652
3.112.321
167.977.918
‐142.036.513
2,84
‐2,40
5
0
6.037.641
6.037.641
188.955.188
20.568.750
10.490.063
4.452.422
4.511.676
7.838.785
3.327.108
172.489.595
‐138.709.405
2,16
‐1,74
6
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
195.492.828
22.625.625
11.539.069
5.001.428
4.608.779
8.134.588
3.525.809
177.098.374
‐135.183.596
1,73
‐1,32
7
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
202.030.469
24.738.188
12.616.476
6.078.835
4.347.905
8.390.677
4.042.772
181.446.278
‐131.140.823
1,43
‐1,03
8
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
208.568.110
26.662.006
13.597.623
7.059.982
4.101.797
8.531.317
4.429.520
185.548.075
‐126.711.303
1,21
‐0,82
9
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
215.105.751
28.653.207
14.613.136
8.075.495
3.869.620
8.649.492
4.779.873
189.417.695
‐121.931.430
1,04
‐0,67
10
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
221.643.392
30.718.528
15.666.449
9.128.808
3.650.584
8.748.063
5.097.479
193.068.279
‐116.833.951
0,91
‐0,55
11
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
228.181.033
32.865.380
16.761.344
10.223.703
3.443.948
8.829.667
5.385.719
196.512.227
‐111.448.232
0,80
‐0,45
12
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
234.718.673
34.608.649
17.650.411
11.112.770
3.249.007
8.771.714
5.522.706
199.761.234
‐105.925.526
0,71
‐0,38
13
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
241.256.314
36.376.582
18.552.057
12.014.416
3.065.101
8.697.928
5.632.827
202.826.335
‐100.292.699
0,64
‐0,32
14
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
247.793.955
38.170.411
19.466.910
12.929.269
2.891.605
8.610.233
5.718.628
205.717.940
‐94.574.071
0,58
‐0,27
15
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
254.331.596
39.991.431
20.395.630
13.857.989
2.727.929
8.510.384
5.782.455
208.445.869
‐88.791.616
0,53
‐0,22
16
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
260.869.237
41.841.003
21.338.912
14.801.271
2.573.518
8.399.983
5.826.465
211.019.387
‐82.965.151
0,48
‐0,19
17
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
267.406.878
43.720.553
22.297.482
15.759.841
2.427.847
8.280.491
5.852.644
213.447.234
‐77.112.506
0,44
‐0,16
18
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
273.944.518
45.631.581
23.272.106
16.734.465
2.290.422
8.153.238
5.862.816
215.737.656
‐71.249.690
0,41
‐0,14
19
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
280.482.159
47.575.660
24.263.587
17.725.946
2.160.775
8.019.431
5.858.656
217.898.431
‐65.391.035
0,38
‐0,11
20
0
6.537.641
6.537.641
287.019.800
49.554.443
25.272.766
18.735.125
2.038.467
7.880.168
5.841.701
219.936.899
‐59.549.334
0,35
‐0,10
163.153.650
NPV =
Interest rate: 6%, current costs of water supply: 0.51 JD/m³
65
‐59.549.334
Table A5.2: WDM municipal water, program "reduction of physical NRW" Year
Investment Cost
unit
Total
O&M costs
JD
Total Cost
JD
Accum. Costs
Designed Capacity MCM
Water value
Cash flow
JD
discounted costs
discounted value
discounted cash flow
JD
accum. discounted costs
accum. discounted cash flow
discounted costs/m³
discounted cash flow/m3
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
0
129.388.500
2.000.000
131.388.500
131.388.500
0
0
‐131.388.500
131.388.500
0
‐131.388.500
131.388.500
‐131.388.500
JD ‐
JD ‐
1
129.388.500
3.000.000
132.388.500
263.777.000
5.000.000
2.550.000
‐129.838.500
124.894.811
2.405.660
‐122.489.151
256.283.311
‐253.877.651
51,26
‐50,78
2
129.388.500
4.000.000
133.388.500
397.165.500
10.000.000
5.100.000
‐128.288.500
118.715.290
4.538.982
‐114.176.308
374.998.601
‐368.053.959
25,00
‐24,54
3
129.388.500
5.000.000
134.388.500
531.554.000
15.000.000
7.650.000
‐126.738.500
112.835.176
6.423.088
‐106.412.089
487.833.777
‐474.466.048
16,26
‐15,82
4
0
6.000.000
6.000.000
537.554.000
18.000.000
9.180.000
3.180.000
4.752.562
7.271.420
2.518.858
492.586.339
‐471.947.190
10,26
‐9,83
5
0
7.000.000
7.000.000
544.554.000
21.000.000
10.710.000
3.710.000
5.230.807
8.003.135
2.772.328
497.817.147
‐469.174.862
7,21
‐6,80
6
0
8.000.000
8.000.000
552.554.000
24.000.000
12.240.000
4.240.000
5.639.684
8.628.717
2.989.033
503.456.831
‐466.185.829
5,41
‐5,01
7
0
9.000.000
9.000.000
561.554.000
25.000.000
12.750.000
3.750.000
5.985.514
8.479.478
2.493.964
509.442.345
‐463.691.865
4,32
‐3,93
8
0
9.500.000
9.500.000
571.054.000
26.000.000
13.260.000
3.760.000
5.960.418
8.319.488
2.359.071
515.402.763
‐461.332.795
3,58
‐3,20
9
0
10.000.000
10.000.000
581.054.000
27.000.000
13.770.000
3.770.000
5.918.985
8.150.442
2.231.457
521.321.747
‐459.101.337
3,05
‐2,68
10
0
10.500.000
10.500.000
591.554.000
28.000.000
14.280.000
3.780.000
5.863.145
7.973.877
2.110.732
527.184.892
‐456.990.605
2,65
‐2,30
11
0
11.000.000
11.000.000
602.554.000
29.000.000
14.790.000
3.790.000
5.794.663
7.791.188
1.996.525
532.979.555
‐454.994.081
2,34
‐2,00
12
0
11.500.000
11.500.000
614.054.000
30.000.000
15.300.000
3.800.000
5.715.148
7.603.631
1.888.484
538.694.703
‐453.105.597
2,09
‐1,76
13
0
12.000.000
12.000.000
626.054.000
31.000.000
15.810.000
3.810.000
5.626.068
7.412.345
1.786.277
544.320.771
‐451.319.320
1,88
‐1,56
14
0
12.500.000
12.500.000
638.554.000
32.000.000
16.320.000
3.820.000
5.528.762
7.218.352
1.689.590
549.849.533
‐449.629.731
1,71
‐1,40
15
0
13.000.000
13.000.000
651.554.000
33.000.000
16.830.000
3.830.000
5.424.446
7.022.571
1.598.125
555.273.979
‐448.031.605
1,57
‐1,27
16
0
13.500.000
13.500.000
665.054.000
34.000.000
17.340.000
3.840.000
5.314.225
6.825.827
1.511.602
560.588.204
‐446.520.004
1,44
‐1,15
17
0
14.000.000
14.000.000
679.054.000
35.000.000
17.850.000
3.850.000
5.199.102
6.628.855
1.429.753
565.787.306
‐445.090.251
1,34
‐1,05
18
0
14.500.000
14.500.000
693.554.000
36.000.000
18.360.000
3.860.000
5.079.985
6.432.312
1.352.327
570.867.291
‐443.737.924
1,24
‐0,97
19
0
15.000.000
15.000.000
708.554.000
37.000.000
18.870.000
3.870.000
4.957.695
6.236.781
1.279.085
575.824.986
‐442.458.838
1,16
‐0,89
20
0
15.500.000
15.500.000
724.054.000
38.000.000
19.380.000
3.880.000
4.832.973
6.042.776
1.209.802
580.657.959
‐441.249.036
1,09
‐0,83
517.554.000
NPV=
Interest rate: 6%, current costs of water supply: 0.51 JD/m³
66
‐441.249.036
Table A5.3a: WDM irrigation water, program "increased irrigation efficiency" & "extension and improved efficiency of treated wastewater use" Value of water for agriculture: 0.563 JD/m³, rate of interest: 6% Year
Investment Cost
unit
Total
JD
O&M costs
JD
0
36.638.761
Total Cost
JD 550.000
37.188.761
Accum. Costs
JD 37.188.761
Designed Capacity
MCM
Water value
JD 0
0
Cash flow
discounted costs
discounted value
accum. discounted benefits
discounted cash flow
accum. discounted costs
accum. discounted cash flow
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
‐37.188.761
37.188.761
0
0
‐37.188.761
37.188.761
‐37.188.761
1
36.638.761
725.000
37.363.761
74.552.522
9.500.000
5.348.500
‐32.015.261
35.248.831
5.045.755
5.045.755
‐30.203.076
72.437.592
‐67.391.837
2
36.638.761
931.250
37.570.011
112.122.533
13.250.000
7.459.750
‐30.110.261
33.437.176
6.639.151
11.684.906
‐26.798.025
105.874.768
‐94.189.863
3
32.638.761
1.126.563
33.765.324
145.887.857
17.375.000
9.782.125
‐23.983.199
28.350.017
8.213.261
19.898.166
‐20.136.756
134.224.785
‐114.326.618
4
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
147.258.560
21.062.500
11.858.188
10.487.484
1.085.725
9.392.795
29.290.962
8.307.070
135.310.510
‐106.019.549
5
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
148.629.263
23.500.000
13.230.500
11.859.797
1.024.269
9.886.599
39.177.561
8.862.330
136.334.779
‐97.157.218
6
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
149.999.966
25.500.000
14.356.500
12.985.797
966.292
10.120.766
49.298.327
9.154.474
137.301.071
‐88.002.744
7
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
151.370.669
27.500.000
15.482.500
14.111.797
911.596
10.296.747
59.595.074
9.385.151
138.212.667
‐78.617.593
8
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
152.741.372
29.500.000
16.608.500
15.237.797
859.996
10.420.378
70.015.452
9.560.382
139.072.663
‐69.057.211
9
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
154.112.075
30.500.000
17.171.500
15.800.797
811.317
10.163.784
80.179.236
9.352.467
139.883.980
‐59.704.743
10
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
155.482.778
31.500.000
17.734.500
16.363.797
765.393
9.902.852
90.082.089
9.137.459
140.649.373
‐50.567.285
11
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
156.853.482
32.500.000
18.297.500
16.926.797
722.069
9.638.895
99.720.983
8.916.825
141.371.443
‐41.650.459
12
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
158.224.185
33.500.000
18.860.500
17.489.797
681.197
9.373.091
109.094.074
8.691.893
142.052.640
‐32.958.566
13
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
159.594.888
34.500.000
19.423.500
18.052.797
642.639
9.106.495
118.200.569
8.463.856
142.695.279
‐24.494.710
14
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
160.965.591
35.500.000
19.986.500
18.615.797
606.263
8.840.048
127.040.617
8.233.785
143.301.543
‐16.260.926
15
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
162.336.294
36.500.000
20.549.500
19.178.797
571.947
8.574.588
135.615.205
8.002.642
143.873.489
‐8.258.284
16
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
163.706.997
37.500.000
21.112.500
19.741.797
539.572
8.310.857
143.926.063
7.771.285
144.413.061
‐486.999
17
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
165.077.700
38.500.000
21.675.500
20.304.797
509.030
8.049.509
151.975.572
7.540.479
144.922.092
7.053.480
18
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
166.448.403
39.500.000
22.238.500
20.867.797
480.217
7.791.120
159.766.692
7.310.903
145.402.309
14.364.383
19
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
167.819.107
40.500.000
22.801.500
21.430.797
453.035
7.536.192
167.302.885
7.083.157
145.855.344
21.447.541
20
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
169.189.810
41.500.000
23.364.500
21.993.797
427.392
7.285.162
174.588.046
6.857.770
146.282.736
28.305.310
NPV =
28.305.310
142.555.044
67
Table A5.3b: WDM irrigation water, program "increased irrigation efficiency" & "extension and improved efficiency of treated wastewater use" Value of water for agriculture: 0.789 JD/m³, rate of interest: 6% Year
unit
Total
Investment Cost
O&M costs
Total Cost
Accum. Costs
Designed Capacity
Water value
Cash flow
discounted costs
discounted value
accum. discounted benefits
discounted cash flow
accum. discounted costs
accum. discounted cash flow
JD
JD
JD
JD
MCM
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
550.000
37.188.761
37.188.761
0
36.638.761
0
0
‐37.188.761
37.188.761
0
0
‐37.188.761
37.188.761
‐37.188.761
1
36.638.761
725.000
37.363.761
74.552.522
9.500.000
7.495.500
‐29.868.261
35.248.831
7.071.226
7.071.226
‐28.177.605
72.437.592
‐65.366.366
2
36.638.761
931.250
37.570.011
112.122.533
13.250.000
10.454.250
‐27.115.761
33.437.176
9.304.245
16.375.472
‐24.132.931
105.874.768
‐89.499.296
3
32.638.761
1.126.563
33.765.324
145.887.857
17.375.000
13.708.875
‐20.056.449
28.350.017
11.510.236
27.885.707
‐16.839.781
134.224.785
‐106.339.077
4
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
147.258.560
21.062.500
16.618.313
15.247.609
1.085.725
13.163.260
41.048.968
12.077.535
135.310.510
‐94.261.543
5
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
148.629.263
23.500.000
18.541.500
17.170.797
1.024.269
13.855.287
54.904.255
12.831.018
136.334.779
‐81.430.524
6
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
149.999.966
25.500.000
20.119.500
18.748.797
966.292
14.183.454
69.087.709
13.217.162
137.301.071
‐68.213.362
7
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
151.370.669
27.500.000
21.697.500
20.326.797
911.596
14.430.077
83.517.785
13.518.481
138.212.667
‐54.694.881
8
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
152.741.372
29.500.000
23.275.500
21.904.797
859.996
14.603.337
98.121.122
13.743.341
139.072.663
‐40.951.541
9
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
154.112.075
30.500.000
24.064.500
22.693.797
811.317
14.243.741
112.364.862
13.432.424
139.883.980
‐27.519.117
10
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
155.482.778
31.500.000
24.853.500
23.482.797
765.393
13.878.065
126.242.927
13.112.671
140.649.373
‐14.406.446
11
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
156.853.482
32.500.000
25.642.500
24.271.797
722.069
13.508.149
139.751.076
12.786.080
141.371.443
‐1.620.366
12
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
158.224.185
33.500.000
26.431.500
25.060.797
681.197
13.135.646
152.886.722
12.454.448
142.052.640
10.834.082
13
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
159.594.888
34.500.000
27.220.500
25.849.797
642.639
12.762.033
165.648.755
12.119.393
142.695.279
22.953.475
14
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
160.965.591
35.500.000
28.009.500
26.638.797
606.263
12.388.629
178.037.383
11.782.366
143.301.543
34.735.841
15
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
162.336.294
36.500.000
28.798.500
27.427.797
571.947
12.016.608
190.053.991
11.444.661
143.873.489
46.180.502
16
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
163.706.997
37.500.000
29.587.500
28.216.797
539.572
11.647.009
201.701.001
11.107.437
144.413.061
57.287.939
17
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
165.077.700
38.500.000
30.376.500
29.005.797
509.030
11.280.751
212.981.752
10.771.721
144.922.092
68.059.660
18
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
166.448.403
39.500.000
31.165.500
29.794.797
480.217
10.918.639
223.900.391
10.438.422
145.402.309
78.498.082
19
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
167.819.107
40.500.000
31.954.500
30.583.797
453.035
10.561.378
234.461.769
10.108.343
145.855.344
88.606.425
20
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
169.189.810
41.500.000
32.743.500
31.372.797
427.392
10.209.578
244.671.347
9.782.186
146.282.736
98.388.611
142.555.044
NPV =
68
98.388.611
Table A5.4a:
WDM irrigation water, program "increased irrigation efficiency" & "extension and improved efficiency of treated wastewater use", inter‐ sectoral water transfer between agriculture and municipal sector Water value in irrigation: 0.563 JD/m³, water value for municipal use: 1.49 JD/m³, rate of interest: 6%
Year
Total
Investment Cost
O&M costs
Total Cost
JD
JD
JD
Water Transfer agric. ‐ munic. MCM
return TWW
Water value agric.
MCM
Water value munic.
JD
Total Benefit
JD
Cash flow
JD
JD
discounted costs
JD
discounted benefits
accum. discounted costs
accum. discounted benefits
JD
JD
JD
accumulated discounted benefits agric. JD
accumulated discounted benefits munic. JD
discounted cash flow
accum. discounted cash flow
JD
JD
0
36.638.761
550.000
37.188.761
0
0
0
0
0
‐37.188.761
37.188.761
0
37.188.761
0
0
0
‐37.188.761
‐37.188.761
1
36.638.761
725.000
37.363.761
9.500.000
4.750.000
2.674.250
14.155.000
16.829.250
‐20.534.511
35.248.831
15.876.651
72.437.592
15.876.651
2.522.877
13.353.774
‐19.372.180
‐56.560.941
2
36.638.761
931.250
37.570.011
13.250.000
6.625.000
3.729.875
19.742.500
23.472.375
‐14.097.636
33.437.176
20.890.330
105.874.768
36.766.981
5.842.453
30.924.528
‐12.546.846
‐69.107.787
3
32.638.761
1.126.563
33.765.324
17.375.000
8.687.500
4.891.063
25.888.750
30.779.813
‐2.985.511
28.350.017
25.843.324
134.224.785
62.610.305
9.949.083
52.661.222
‐2.506.693
‐71.614.480
4
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
21.062.500
10.531.250
5.929.094
31.383.125
37.312.219
35.941.516
1.085.725
29.554.772
135.310.510
92.165.077
14.645.481
77.519.596
28.469.047
‐43.145.433
5
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
23.500.000
11.750.000
6.615.250
35.015.000
41.630.250
40.259.547
1.024.269
31.108.545
136.334.779
123.273.622
19.588.780
103.684.841
30.084.275
‐13.061.157
6
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
25.500.000
12.750.000
7.178.250
37.995.000
45.173.250
43.802.547
966.292
31.845.359
137.301.071
155.118.981
24.649.163
130.469.817
30.879.067
17.817.910
7
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
27.500.000
13.750.000
7.741.250
40.975.000
48.716.250
47.345.547
911.596
32.399.089
138.212.667
187.518.069
29.797.537
157.720.532
31.487.493
49.305.402
8
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
29.500.000
14.750.000
8.304.250
43.955.000
52.259.250
50.888.547
859.996
32.788.100
139.072.663
220.306.169
35.007.726
185.298.443
31.928.104
81.233.506
9
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
30.500.000
15.250.000
8.585.750
45.445.000
54.030.750
52.660.047
811.317
31.980.718
139.883.980
252.286.887
40.089.618
212.197.269
31.169.401
112.402.907
10
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
31.500.000
15.750.000
8.867.250
46.935.000
55.802.250
54.431.547
765.393
31.159.685
140.649.373
283.446.572
45.041.044
238.405.528
30.394.291
142.797.199
11
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
32.500.000
16.250.000
9.148.750
48.425.000
57.573.750
56.203.047
722.069
30.329.133
141.371.443
313.775.705
49.860.492
263.915.214
29.607.064
172.404.263
12
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
33.500.000
16.750.000
9.430.250
49.915.000
59.345.250
57.974.547
681.197
29.492.771
142.052.640
343.268.476
54.547.037
288.721.439
28.811.574
201.215.836
13
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
34.500.000
17.250.000
9.711.750
51.405.000
61.116.750
59.746.047
642.639
28.653.917
142.695.279
371.922.394
59.100.284
312.822.109
28.011.278
229.227.114
14
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
35.500.000
17.750.000
9.993.250
52.895.000
62.888.250
61.517.547
606.263
27.815.534
143.301.543
399.737.927
63.520.309
336.217.619
27.209.270
256.436.385
15
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
36.500.000
18.250.000
10.274.750
54.385.000
64.659.750
63.289.047
571.947
26.980.255
143.873.489
426.718.182
67.807.603
358.910.579
26.408.308
282.844.693
16
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
37.500.000
18.750.000
10.556.250
55.875.000
66.431.250
65.060.547
539.572
26.150.415
144.413.061
452.868.597
71.963.031
380.905.565
25.610.842
308.455.535
17
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
38.500.000
19.250.000
10.837.750
57.365.000
68.202.750
66.832.047
509.030
25.328.075
144.922.092
478.196.671
75.987.786
402.208.885
24.819.044
333.274.579
18
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
39.500.000
19.750.000
11.119.250
58.855.000
69.974.250
68.603.547
480.217
24.515.044
145.402.309
502.711.715
79.883.346
422.828.369
24.034.827
357.309.406
19
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
40.500.000
20.250.000
11.400.750
60.345.000
71.745.750
70.375.047
453.035
23.712.904
145.855.344
526.424.619
83.651.442
442.773.177
23.259.869
380.569.275
20
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
41.500.000
20.750.000
11.682.250
61.835.000
73.517.250
72.146.547
427.392
22.923.026
146.282.736
549.347.645
87.294.023
462.053.622
22.495.634
403.064.909
NPV =
403.064.909
142.555.044
69
Table A5.4b:
WDM irrigation water, program "increased irrigation efficiency" & "extension and improved efficiency of treated wastewater use", inter‐ sectoral water transfer between agriculture and municipal sector Water value in irrigation: 0.789 JD/m³, water value for municipal use: 1.49 JD/m³, rate of interest: 6%
Year
Investment Cost
JD 0
O&M costs
JD
36.638.761
Total Cost
JD
550.000
37.188.761
Water Transfer agric. munic. MCM
return TWW
Water value agric.
MCM
0
Water value munic.
JD 0
Total Benefit
JD 0
JD 0
0
Cash flow
discounted costs
discounted benefits
accum. discounted costs
accum. discounted benefits
JD
JD
JD
JD
JD
‐37.188.761
37.188.761
0
37.188.761
accumulated discounted benefits agric. JD
accumulated discounted benefits munic. JD
0
0
0
discounted cash flow
accum. discounted cash flow
JD
JD
‐37.188.761
‐37.188.761
1
36.638.761
725.000
37.363.761
9.500.000
4.750.000
3.747.750
14.155.000
17.902.750
‐19.461.011
35.248.831
16.889.387
72.437.592
16.889.387
3.535.613
13.353.774
‐18.359.444
‐55.548.205
2
36.638.761
931.250
37.570.011
13.250.000
6.625.000
5.227.125
19.742.500
24.969.625
‐12.600.386
33.437.176
22.222.877
105.874.768
39.112.264
8.187.736
30.924.528
‐11.214.299
‐66.762.504
3
32.638.761
1.126.563
33.765.324
17.375.000
8.687.500
6.854.438
25.888.750
32.743.188
‐1.022.136
28.350.017
27.491.812
134.224.785
66.604.076
13.942.854
52.661.222
‐858.205
‐67.620.709
4
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
21.062.500
10.531.250
8.309.156
31.383.125
39.692.281
38.321.578
1.085.725
31.440.004
135.310.510
98.044.080
20.524.484
77.519.596
30.354.279
‐37.266.430
5
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
23.500.000
11.750.000
9.270.750
35.015.000
44.285.750
42.915.047
1.024.269
33.092.889
136.334.779
131.136.969
27.452.127
103.684.841
32.068.620
‐5.197.810
6
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
25.500.000
12.750.000
10.059.750
37.995.000
48.054.750
46.684.047
966.292
33.876.703
137.301.071
165.013.671
34.543.854
130.469.817
32.910.411
27.712.601
7
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
27.500.000
13.750.000
10.848.750
40.975.000
51.823.750
50.453.047
911.596
34.465.754
138.212.667
199.479.425
41.758.893
157.720.532
33.554.158
61.266.758
8
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
29.500.000
14.750.000
11.637.750
43.955.000
55.592.750
54.222.047
859.996
34.879.579
139.072.663
234.359.004
49.060.561
185.298.443
34.019.583
95.286.341
9
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
30.500.000
15.250.000
12.032.250
45.445.000
57.477.250
56.106.547
811.317
34.020.696
139.883.980
268.379.700
56.182.431
212.197.269
33.209.379
128.495.720
10
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
31.500.000
15.750.000
12.426.750
46.935.000
59.361.750
57.991.047
765.393
33.147.291
140.649.373
301.526.991
63.121.464
238.405.528
32.381.898
160.877.618
11
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
32.500.000
16.250.000
12.821.250
48.425.000
61.246.250
59.875.547
722.069
32.263.760
141.371.443
333.790.752
69.875.538
263.915.214
31.541.691
192.419.309
12
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
33.500.000
16.750.000
13.215.750
49.915.000
63.130.750
61.760.047
681.197
31.374.049
142.052.640
365.164.800
76.443.361
288.721.439
30.692.851
223.112.160
13
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
34.500.000
17.250.000
13.610.250
51.405.000
65.015.250
63.644.547
642.639
30.481.686
142.695.279
395.646.487
82.824.377
312.822.109
29.839.047
252.951.207
14
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
35.500.000
17.750.000
14.004.750
52.895.000
66.899.750
65.529.047
606.263
29.589.824
143.301.543
425.236.311
89.018.692
336.217.619
28.983.561
281.934.768
15
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
36.500.000
18.250.000
14.399.250
54.385.000
68.784.250
67.413.547
571.947
28.701.264
143.873.489
453.937.575
95.026.996
358.910.579
28.129.318
310.064.086
16
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
37.500.000
18.750.000
14.793.750
55.875.000
70.668.750
69.298.047
539.572
27.818.491
144.413.061
481.756.066
100.850.500
380.905.565
27.278.919
337.343.004
17
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
38.500.000
19.250.000
15.188.250
57.365.000
72.553.250
71.182.547
509.030
26.943.696
144.922.092
508.699.761
106.490.876
402.208.885
26.434.665
363.777.669
18
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
39.500.000
19.750.000
15.582.750
58.855.000
74.437.750
73.067.047
480.217
26.078.804
145.402.309
534.778.565
111.950.196
422.828.369
25.598.586
389.376.256
19
0
1.370.703
1.370.703
40.500.000
20.250.000
15.977.250
60.345.000
76.322.250
74.951.547
453.035
25.225.497
145.855.344
560.004.061
117.230.885
442.773.177
24.772.461
414.148.717
462.053.622
23.957.843
438.106.560
NPV =
438.106.560
20 Total
0 142.555.044
1.370.703
1.370.703
41.500.000
20.750.000
16.371.750
61.835.000
78.206.750
76.836.047
427.392
24.385.234
146.282.736
584.389.296
70
122.335.674
Appendix 6: Strategies, policies and legislations Table A6.1: Existing planning, strategies, policies and legislations Year Document Title
Type
Theme
Description
1988 Water Authority Law xx Law No 18 of 1988
Institutional It established the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ) established in 1988 as an autonomous corporate body, with financial and administrative independence. The law describes the Mandate of WAJ, in which WAJ is fully responsible for providing municipal water and wastewater services, and development and management of groundwater resources. It also clarifies WAJ's relationship with the Ministry of Water and Irrigation.
1992 Ministry of By Law xx Water and Irrigation By Law No 54 of 1992
Institutional It established the Ministry of Water and Irrigation, in which it gives the full responsibility for water and public sewage in the Kingdom as well as the projects pertaining thereto, formulation and transmission of the water policy to the Council of Ministers for adoption. The by‐law gives the Ministry full responsibility for the economic and social development of the Jordan Valley as well as carry out all the works which are necessary for the realization of this object.
1994 Wastewater Regulation Wastewater The regulation describes WAJs responsibility to provide sewage connections networks, xx Regulation No and the allocated fees for each. It also clarifies that any illegal action for connections are 66 of 1994 forbidden with their penalty fees. 1994 Drinking Water Regulation Drinking xx Subscription Water Regulation No 67 of 1994 1997 Water Utility Policy xx Policy of 1997
The regulation describes the subscription and un‐subscription procedures that need to be done, and the technical fees, insurance and tariffication of the drinking water. It gives the Cabinet the right to issue decisions related to tariff modification.
Water utility The policy was written after the water strategy formulation in April 1997. The policy addresses the following themes: Institutional Development, PSP, Water Pricing and Cost Recovery, HR, Water Resource Management, Water Quality and the Environment, Service Levels, Public Awareness, Conservation and Efficiency Measures and Investment.
71
1997 Water Strategy Strategy xxx for Jordan of 1997
Water sector The document helps describe Jordan's responsibility towards its water sector by the following themes: resource development, resource management, legislation and institutional, shared water resources, public awareness, performance, health standards, private sector participation, financing and research development.
1998 Groundwater Management Policy of 1998
Groundwater The objective of this policy is to outline in more detail the statements contained in the document entitled: "Jordan's Water Strategy". The policy statements set out the Government's policy and intentions concerning groundwater management aiming at development of the resource, its protection, management and measures needed to bring the annual abstractions from the various renewable aquifers to the sustainable rate of each.
Policy
1998 Irrigation Water Policy Policy of 1998
Irrigation
1998 Wastewater Management Policy of 1998
Wastewater The objective of this policy is to outline in more detail the statements contained in the document entitled: "Jordan's Water Strategy". The policy statements set out the Government's policy and intentions concerning wastewater management aiming at the collection and treatment of wastewater from different locations. It also aims at the reuse of treated wastewater and sludge.
Policy
2001 Jordan Valley Law Development Law No 30 of 2001
2002 Underground By law Water Control By‐Law No 85 of
The policy addresses water related issues of resource development: agricultural use, resource management, the imperative of technology transfer, water quality, efficiency, cost recovery, management and other issues. Linkages with energy and the environment are accorded a separate chapter. The policy is compatible with the Water Strategy and is in conformity with its long‐term objectives.
Institutional The law for development of the water resources of the Valley and utilizing them for purposes of irrigated farming, domestic and municipal uses, industry, generating hydroelectric power and other beneficial uses; also their protection and conservation and the carrying out of all the works related to the development, utilization, protection and conservation of these resources. Jordan Valley Development Law No19 of 1988 amended by this law. Groundwater The by‐law describes and entails the different procedures that are needed for controlling groundwater resources in Jordan. It helps explain the utilization and extraction quantity allowed. Moreover, conditions about licenses and their cost for borehole drilling, and water extraction fees are included in this regulation.
72
2002 and its amendments of 2003, 2004 and 2007 2003 JVA Strategy Strategy Plan for 2003 ‐ 2008
Water sector The document helps describe (Jordan's Valley Authority) responsibility towards its water sector by the following four major goals (water resource management and development, water supply and distribution, land development and management, organizational performance improvement and development). Each goal has set objectives and later strategies that JVA should take responsibility of.
2004 National Water Water Master Plan of master 2004 plan
Water sector Without water, there is no life. Individuals, private companies and public institutions are taking great efforts to make water useable for their needs ‐ be it drinking water, pastoral needs, industries, agriculture or others. In order to coordinate these activities, and to safeguard that the resources are also available for future generations, a common planning framework is needed. This framework is given by the Water Master Plan. The master plan will not be a static printed document but a Digital Water Master Plan based on data and information from the Water Information System (WIS).
2008 Irrigation Policy Equipment and System Design Policy of 2008
Irrigation
This policy statement follows from longer‐term objectives outlined in the Water Strategy and supplements the Irrigation Water Policy and the Irrigation Water Allocation and Use Policy by establishing a policy on irrigation equipment and system design standards. The policy addresses the following themes: defining and updating equipment standards, raising farmers’ awareness of standards, testing and enforcement of standards, training and certifying drip system designers, and institutional responsibilities.
2008 Irrigation Water Policy Allocation and Use Policy of 2008
Irrigation
This policy statement follows from longer‐term objectives outlined in the Water Strategy and elaborates on priorities specified in the Irrigation Water Policy. As such, it comprises an updating and extension of selected elements of the irrigation water policy. In particular it consolidates and elaborates elements of that policy relating to on farm water management, management and administration, water tariffing, and irrigation efficiency. The policy addresses the following themes: defining and updating crop water requirements, water allocation and billing practices, building farmers’ water
73
management skills, using reclaimed water, measuring deliveries and delivering water to groups. 2008 National Water Policy Demand Management Policy of 2008
Water Demand Management Policy is intended to result in maximum utilization and Water Demand minimum waste of water, and promote effective water use efficiency and water Management conservation, for social and economic development and environmental protection.
2008 Water Authority Strategy Strategic Plan 2008‐2012
Water sector The strategic plan analyzes the internal and external environment of WAJ then identifies the main challenges that face WAJ. The strategic plan sets 6 objectives and proposes 4 strategies and action plan to achieve them. It uses the balance score card to monitor and follow up the progress in achieving the objectives
2009 Jordan's Water Strategy Strategy 2008‐ 2022: Water for Life
Water sector This is the most recent strategy that specified drinking water as the main priority in water allocation, followed by industry and agriculture. The new water strategy was distinguished by the participatory approach and it is based on vision driven change efforts. It includes specific actions and plans with targets to be achieved. Furthermore, the strategy emphasis on the two mega projects; the Disi water conveyance and the Red‐Dead Canal, the reduction of the Non‐Revenue for Water (NWR), on having cost reflective tariffs and restructuring the institutions of the water sector.
Source: compiled by ATEEC
74
75